From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Thu Jan 25 02:01:34 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA26700; Thu, 25 Jan 90 02:01:24 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07123; 25 Jan 90 0:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23089; 24 Jan 90 23:33 CST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 22:31:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #51 Message-Id: <9001242231.ab26881@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jan 90 22:30:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Who's Using Whom? (John McHarry) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Jim Breen) Re: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested (Curtis E. Reid) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Scott D. Green) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Dave Esan) Re: Sprint Stuff (John Higdon) Re: The AT&T Problem (wilson@ccop1.ocpt.ccur.com) Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? (Greg Hackney) 0+ in Area 213 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1990 18:18:01 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Robert Gutierrez wrote in v10 #35 that, contrary to what I had said in v10 #30, some IEC trunk groups do overflow to trunks into another IEC's network. Unfortunately he has committed the fallacy of listening to what I said rather than to what I meant. All I meant to assert was that access to one IEC's network is not obtained via another IEC's switched facilities (with the interesting exception I discussed). Thus one would not access network A via switched service provided as part of network B, although there might be an arrangement whereby one would spill over into B if A could not offer service, rather than be blocked entirely. In this case, the call would be carried entirely by network B. Switched access via AT&T seemed to be the original theory of why Higdon could not access US Sprint during the AT&T incident last MLK Day. (Actually, even that isn't quite true: He had been told there was a cable cut.) No one has yet commented on the likelihood of my theory that there may have been an AT&T operated switch acting as part of the LEC's network, perhaps acting as the access tandem. Lest I get corrected yet again: Of course one accesses international networks via an IEC's switched network, in a sense. Also, one can sometimes connect through one network into a gateway into another network. I guess this is what PBX access ports could be viewed as doing for private networks. Regarding Gutierrez' other comment on my comment that separate direct trunks to two different carriers would be overkill: I agree that it might well be a good idea to split the traffic between two carriers at the point of presence (POP), but the larger threat is probably a cable cut between the customer premises and the POP. To guard against that would require diverse routing of the cables, probably to the extent of running them out different sides of the building, as is done with STPs. How one would maintain diverse routing to the POP, I do not know offhand. Surely these would also have to be 'bypass' trunks, or either the serving CO or access tandem (where used) could knock both groups off the air, as has been demonstrated. Having gotten all this in place, somebody will, no doubt, trip over the extension cord and unplug the PBX. That is not to say that the job cannot be done for really vital needs like national security or ordering pizza, just that it's not all that cheap. This is only my humble opinion. It hasn't been reviewed, approved, or billed for. *************************************************************** * John McHarry (703)883-6100 McHarry@MITRE.ORG * *************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:38:39 GMT In article <3129@accuvax.nwu.edu>, munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Horsfall) writes: > In article <2851@accuvax.nwu.edu>, > jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) writes: > | Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and [...] > Excuse me Jim, but it was *NOT* a "ham" (licenced amateur radio > enthusiast). It was just a listener with a scanner. I get really > agro when people attribute actions to "hams" merely because a receiver > was involved! Sorry Dave (combing the scorched bits from his beard). I aso had a blast from another of the de-dah-dah-dit brigade. Phil Clark (pgc@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz) complained about an earlier posting of mine in the following e-mail to me: < Jim, I saw your posting to the above about cordless phones and I was a little < dismayed about one particular part of your comment. As I understand (and I < could be wrong), the scanner eavedropper on the Peacock telephone call was < NOT a ham (i.e. amateur) operator. Amateurs (hams) in Australia are < generally very careful about abiding by both the Radiocommunications < Act and the Telecommunications Act due to the conditions of their licences. OK. Maybe I was loose in my terminology in equating ham with anyone who owned a scanner. My Concise Oxford has 'operator of an amateur radio station' as one of the meanings of 'ham'. Since this would include owners of CB sets, it is pretty loose in itself. If you want to maintain a tighter definition, e.g a *licenced* amateur radio station operator, I would agree that the eavesdropper was not a "ham". < As a matter of interest, it is the Telecommunications Act that prohibits the < interception of ANY telehone conversation by ANY means. This means that it is < a breach of the Act to listen to a telephone call even if you can hear it on < an ordinary radio receiver. (Of course the above does not include any party < for which the call is intended). Further, as I understand the act, it is < illegal for any person, including the originator and receiver(s) of a call < to record it. On the first point, I quite agree. Some argue, however, that there is a conflict between the Telecomm. Act and the Act covering ownership and operation of radio receivers. As I said, I don't think this has been sorted out in court yet. Apropos recording calls, this *is* permitted with the mutual consent of both parties. Hence all those radio reporters who conduct quick interviews over the 'phone, and the radio talk-back shows with their "Now, Mr Legree, I would like you to hear what Mrs. Bloggs said yesterday". < As a responsible amateur myself, I would very much appreciate it if you would < set the record straight to the world if a ham (amateur) was not involved < in the incident you mentioned. I will post your letter and my reply to the newsgroup. _______ 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 3 573 2748 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 09:15 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Re: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested Two weeks ago, I asked for information on Home PBX/KSU Systems and requested that you send me information based on your experience. Well, I have the results in: ONLY ONE OF YOU ACTUALLY GAVE ME THE INFO! The rest are requests to receive the compilation. So, I decided to give you another chance. So, I'm repeating the information below and I changed the date to January 31, 1990. 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 31, 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) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:04 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: Various Comments Fred Linton writes: >Regarding the 10XXX list -- for some time NJ Bell ran radio spots in >the NYC area urging listeners to use the 10-code 10NJB ; yet I see no >10652 in the list. Is 10NJB no longer a valid 10-code? Apparently Bell of PA and NJ Bell are allowed to compete with the LD carriers for interstate service in the Phila. metropolitan area. I believe the same arrangement is true between NY Tel and NJ Bell. From Phila., dial 10BPA to let Bell carry the call; from NJ dial 10NJB. It gets billed on the same page as the rest of the intra-LATA calls. -scott ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 24 Jan 90 19:01:10 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY 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. According to previous articles 908 will not be activated until 1/1/91. And yet the most recent V&H masters I have received from BellCore include 908. Has the timing been changed? Isn't 903 in Dallas supposed to be implemented this July? And 510 in October? Thanks. --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 24 Jan 90 12:20:56 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon > [Moderator's Note: Such a card does in fact exist, although it is not > marketed for the reason you mention; it just works that way. AT&T has > a type of 'institutional credit card', and has had for many years. It > has a fourteen digit number on it, ten of which make up the account > and four of which make up the PIN, like any phone card. Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. In the case of Sprint, the card was obtained long before the FON business from US Telecom, which Sprint continued to honor after the merger. My Pac*Bell card was issued without an imbedded phone number at my request. It, of course, works perfectly with AT&T. The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens" for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T for this?) From the length of time it takes these AOSs to complete calls, I would suspect the "test call" maneuver. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "" Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 24 Jan 90 18:45:36 GMT Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ Here's a brillant thought. Why don't the BOC's list all the access codes in the phone book. In my NJ Bell phone book, it justs states that a list of them is available from NJ Bell! Considering everything else that's in there (stadium seating charts, etc.) a list of long distance access codes doesn't seem too far out of line. ------------------------------ From: Greg Hackney Subject: Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? Date: 25 Jan 90 01:23:28 GMT Reply-To: greg@texbell.uucp Organization: texbell gateway, dallas Here's a correction from Carl Moore (cmoore@BRL.MIL) on my previous posting: Greg The following was in telecom from you; in addition to the minor point of "`" which I have edited out, the zipcode is wrong. 94583 is San Ramon, near Oakland. Solana Beach, near San Diego, is 92075. Technical Program Chairman: Thomas Seay Thomas Seay, Inc. 982 Santa Florencia Solana Beach, CA 94583 <-- s/b 92075 Phone: 619-755-0062 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 9:45:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 0+ In Area 213 Years ago (c. 1981 or 1982) I was wondering about 0+7D in area code 213 (L.A. area, using NXX prefixes and not yet split to form 818), and was told that timeout was used to distinguish, say, 0-413-2345 from 0-413-234-5678. Now I just discovered that 0+7D is not in the August 1989-90 Pacific Bell White Pages, Greater Los Angeles. On page A67 (high page # due to divestiture?) there, it has: Pacific Bell Calling Card Service: "How to Use Your Calling Card with Touch-Tone Phone with Touch-Tone Service"; also, "With Rotary Dial Phones", and both of them start with: "Within and outside your Area Code, dial a. "0", b. Area Code, c. Phone Number I did this little exercise because I was wondering (again?) if input starting with 0NN there would enable the timeout to be skipped (this is with 0+7D, not 0+213+7D). (No NNX area codes at this writing; "Time T" projected for 1995.) Forgot to ask about LA-area pay phones -- does someone have access to them? Preferably GTE or PacBell or AT&T. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #51 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Thu Jan 25 03:10:55 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA29728; Thu, 25 Jan 90 03:10:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15256; 25 Jan 90 1:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07123; 25 Jan 90 0:36 CST Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 0:01:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #52 Message-Id: <9001250001.ab20863@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Jan 90 00:00:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Fred R. Goldstein) Errata Notice: Update to Last Posting on FCC (Ken Levitt) Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Chris Johnson) Various Things (David Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! Date: 24 Jan 90 15:39:11 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <3160@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes... >I just found the following information in the FidoNet Law echo. It >seems to be up-to-date on the latest status of things. Please don't >reply to me. > By JON, Sysop of GLIB, Washington DC., (703) 578-4542 > January 13, 1990 Since I'm playing Rumor Control Central these days, I cracked out my file on the matter to see what gives. Alas, our Fidonet friend is wrong. The threat is not credible at this time, as I will explain. > This morning, I spoke with a knowledgeable source who works for >one of the major national communications services, and this is the >information he provided. Because I operate a non-profit 501(c)(3) >service, I take no official position whatever on this. I merely >pass along his information for your enlightenment: > There was, in fact, a proposal put forth by the FCC to impose a >"modem charge tariff" in 1987. It was Docket #87-215. It died an >unceremonious death, largely due to the outcry from those who would >be affected by it. >[Moderator's Note: We have a copy of 87-215 in the Telecom Archives if >anyone wishes to review it. PT] > HOWEVER ... On March 30, 1989, the FCC proposed a new surcharge >(read federal tax) via Docket #89-79 covering "ONA Tariffing No, it's not a tax; the feds wouldn't get it, local telcos would. >Policies". (In the legalese technospeak of the communications >industry, "ONA" means "Open Network Architecture".) The reason this is bogus is because March 30, 1989 belongs to an earlier, terminated, historical era in the FCC's history. That was BEFORE new chairman Alf Sikes took the reins. Indeed, on March 30, there was still a feeling at the FCC that what they couldn't win the first time around, they might win by the ONA "back door" approach. But that's dead. Here's some background. Former FCC chair "Mad Monk Mark" Fowler had this idea that the local BOCs monopoly could be made irrelevant if they had to disaggregate their tariffs into "basic service elements" and provide them at some cost-based or regulated basis. The overall idea was "Open Network Architecture", where "Enhanced Service Providers" (ESPs) would be able to buy specific services or tailored packages, to provide the appropriate (for their needs) level of access to the BOC networks. The seven RBOCs were asked for their inputs; all came out with very different ideas of what ONA could or should be. Indeed they even differed on what was a) currently provided and b) technically feasible. (I point this out to demonstrate how vague the whole business was. It didn't have any basis in technical differences between the regional networks; they all use the same CO generics. ONA is still an open issue.) When the FCC came up with the separate matter of reclassifying ESPs as carriers instead of as users (and thus subject to the higher charge, about $5/hr), they drew a big outcry. So Fowler's successor, Dennis Patrick (a slightly less confrontational ideologue of similar persuasion), left open the idea of using the ONA proceeding as a way to get ESP surcharges. If you want ONA, he implied, you might have to PAY for it. This was where things stood in March, 1989. > Bear in mind that the details of this docket have only been >proposed, and not nailed down. But essentially it means that your >government and mine, via the FCC, wants more money for data >communications, and they now appear to be attempting to "back door" >the failed docket #87-215 by proposing new "Carrier Switched Access >Charges" (taxes) on ENHANCED SERVICE PROVIDERS (operators of on-line >information services), for "Enhanced Subscriber Services" (anything >other than voice calls). Actually, the definition of Enhanced Subscriber Services wasn't a voice/data dichotomy, but that's neither hither nor thither. The now- operative words are newer than 89-79's admittedly inflammatory words. They are these words from the November 6, 1989 issue of Congressional Record, and a related press release from Rep. Markey. First, the Congressional Record quotes Rep. Matthew Rinaldo: Finally, I want to mention my concerns on one issue that has been a source of controversy between the Telecommunications Subcommittee and the FCC. The Telecommunications Subcommittee members are in agreement that the Commission should not impose access charges on information service providers. Twice, the Subcommittee Chairman and I have fought the FCC on this issue. The subcommittee believes strongly that access charges are inappropriate and would drive up the public's cost in getting information services. We didn't make these views explicit in the committee report only because FCC Chairman Sikes pledged during our authorization hearing not to impose these fees. We expect the Commission to live up to that pledge and work to make information services widely available for all our citizens. [135CR154] Mr. Markey's remarks include the following text: For over two years, I and many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance have been concerned about the potentially harmful impact that access charges levied on enhanced service providers (ESPs) might have on the development of the information services industry and the consumers and institutions they serve. As has been articulated on numerous occasions through Subcommittee hearings and correspondence, my colleagues and I are convinced that requiring ESPs, as users of the network, to pay carrier access charges would seriously injure the enhanced services industry, render advanced information services unaffordable for many residential and small business consumers, and impede America's competitiveness. In the past, the [FCC] has raised, rejected, and raised once again the idea of assessing ESP access charges. Each time, the cacaphony of voices, both public and private, opposed to such a fee has drowned out the few supporting the idea. If the US is going to have information services develop to its fullest potential -- with affordable access to all those who need it -- there needs to be in place a regulatory commitment to ensuring these goals. Let us, therefore, lay this matter to rest once and for all. The ESP access charge issue should not be resurrected again. ESPs should not be forced to pay usage-sensitive access charges for access to the interstate network either directly or by "backdoor" devices such as a precondition to obtaining any of the Open Network Architecture services. During the Subcommittee's September 14, 1989 FCC Authorization hearing, Chairman Sikes stated that he does not intend to require ESPs to pay carrier access charges in order to obtain access to the interstate telephone network. Because of the clarity of the Chairman's statement, and the good faith assurances we have received from the Commission since then, this issue was not addressed in the accompanying legislation. The commission appears to understand the strength of our concern on this matter. Nonetheless, I intend to conduct active oversight of this issue and, if the Commission varies from these expxressed concerns, we intend to take appropriate and prompt action. [Extensions of Remarks, Nov. 7, 1989] Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Standard Disclaimer: These remarks are those of the author, at best. No company in its right mind would agree with me, let alone my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 00:27:42 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Errata Notice: Update to Last Posting on FCC ==================== Posted from the FidoNet Law Echo =================== Date: Mon Jan 22 1990 16:52:45 From: Bruce Wilson Subj: Re: FCC "Modem Tax," Typos Errata Notice: BW> The full Notice of Proposed Rule Making is found in 4 FCC BW> Record No. 10, at pages 3893 - 3994. Should read: pages 3983 - 3994. BW> we are now in the "Sunshine Agenda" period, notwithstanding Should read: we are not in the 'Sunshine Agenda' period and that public comments can be made, notwithstanding ============================ End of FidoNet Posting ======================== Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups Date: 24 Jan 90 17:23:41 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA It's extremely interesting to me that AT&T decided to sue MCI over "stealing" customers away because after my experience a couple years ago, I thought about writing a letter to AT&T complaining about that very practice. I never did write the letter but here's what happened: Back when Equal Access was first being implemented by Northwestern Bell, I had two phone lines in my house. This seemed to give me a good opportunity to get the best of both worlds in a sense, so I chose AT&T (old tried and true) as my primary carrier for one line, and SBS Skyline (then the cheapest nationwide LD carrier with reputable quality) for my other line. Time passes, and MCI buys out SBS Skyline. I wasn't real happy with that since I had specifically chosen not to go with MCI as they didn't seem to offer anything over AT&T. More time passes, and now MCI as well as other LD carriers are doing big marketing pushses to get people to choose them as their 1+ LD carriers. I must have been getting 1 or 2 calls a month from MCI alone asking me to try their service. One night, a lady from MCI calls with the usual pitch and I respond, as always, "I'm already an MCI customer, thank you." At this, she gets confused. Her records don't show me as an MCI customer. She asks me to dial a special number which will tell me my LD carrier for the phone dialing the number. I do so, it says "MCI" and I report back to her on the other phone (the one with AT&T). She gets more confused, says thanks, and rings off. I forgot about it since that was the extent of the call. Until I got my next Northwestern Bell phone bill, which not only indicated that they had changed my LD carrier from AT&T on the one line, but were billing me a service charge for doing so! Well, I was more than a little peeved, especially since NWBell had been gouging its customers for years with ridiculously high rates. (That was just solved a couple months ago, after 6 to 8 years of ripping us off, the state attorney general filed a lawsuit against the phone company, and now they have to pay their customers back something on the order of $31 million. Yay!). I called NWBell's billing/service people and said I had not by any means requested a change from AT&T to MCI and why did they change it and bill me? They checked and responded that the request to make the change had come from MCI! I asked if that was legit, and they said yes, I must have given MCI the request. I said no, what do I do now? They said call MCI. So I called MCI. This was about 2 years ago. They said they would change it back and credit my account, although they seemed very unhappy to do so. The following month it was changed back to AT&T as a result of my call to NWBell, for which I was billed again a service charge. MCI was supposed to credit me for both of these charges, and said they would. A couple months ago, they finally did. It only took them 2 years. Sheesh. Not that MCI has bad service for their customers who want to be customers. I am in fact, an MCI customer now, but not a 1+ customer. I have an MCI calling card that also gets me mileage in a frequent flyer club. Heh. It seems like MCI's marketing/sales people got a little carried away. They did it to me, and it's no surprise they did it to others. I always like to see people get what they deserve, so it is with great pleasure I read the news of AT&T's lawsuit against MCI. "Too bad ignorance and injustice aren't always painful." Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Subject: Various Things Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 17:38:29 EST From: woody 1) re: Caller ID and privacy: I read about some company (GTE?) somewhere which proposed that those who don't want their number sent out over Caller ID could have a special reference code (an undialiable number) sent over instead. That way, the caller can maintain privacy if necessary, while the callee can have the number traced if trouble occurs. 2) David Lewis wrote about 1 800 NOTHING (668.4464). That number will be in the 416 area (668 exchange). From within 416, the number "cannot be completed as dialed", though it might be valid if dialed outside of 416... perhaps 1 800 NOWHERE (669.4373)??? 3) The 668 prefix in 800 works well with the Ontario provincial government's tourist office. You can dial 1 800 ONTARIO (668.2746) for Great White North tourist info. 4) On a similar note, there is a 1 800 COUNTRY (268.6879) in the 416 area. It is used by a TV/phone-order company to sell country music albums. 5) There was an incident some years back with a 1 800 MICHAEL number. Seems that Michael Jackson fans thought they could get in touch with their hero this way, but turns out that someone else named Michael had the number. 6) I had an earlier request for a list of 800 and 900 exchange prefixes; I haven't seen it in the net.mail yet, so if someone has anything, please send it on down (djcl@contact.uucp). I do have a list for 800 prefixes used for Canadian numbers only if anyone is interested in that (that's how the 1 800 NOTHING location would be identified). I don't have much info for the States, though. 7) When interchangeable area codes come on line in the next few years, I understand that the first ones to be assigned will be of the form NN0 (eg. 220, 560, 990 etc). It seems that this could allow some rural-based or uncrowded NPAs to retain their 1+7D dialing, provided that they're not using any conflicting NN0 codes (thus, NPAs will be of the form N(0/1)X, plus NN0). There was even an ordering of how these NN0 area codes are to be assigned, while NN0 exchanges within an NPA are to be assigned in the reverse order... perhaps this ordering could be posted or mailed if available somewhere. 8) Re: London split: London's 01 code will split to 071 and 081. I don't know if this subject has been beaten to death here, but one wonders why London didn't keep 01 for the central area and use 071 for the split-up outer area. This seems less disruptive than scrapping 01 altogether. 9) New area codes: I have a list of upcoming code splits. I'm surprised that codes like 310 and 510 would be used before something like 909 and 917. It's understandable to hold off reassigning old Mexico codes 706 and 905 too soon, though... || David Leibold "Ask not for whom the Bell tolls - the Bell tolls || djcl@contact.uucp for free." - Alexander Graham Donne || david.leibold@canremote.uucp (from preface to _Toll-Free_Canada_) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #52 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Fri Jan 26 04:17:54 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA03090; Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:17:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27849; 26 Jan 90 2:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27258; 26 Jan 90 1:44 CST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 0:45:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #53 Message-Id: <9001260045.ab10373@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jan 90 00:45:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Crunch Is Here! (John Draper) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Draper) Telephone Redialer (Elisei Unteanu) Computerized Collect Calls (Adam M. Gaffin) Hard Mail Services (Axel Dunkel) Want Info on Text to Speech Units (Kenneth East) Those Wrong Numbers (John Higdon) Fax Group IV Specs (Sharon Lynne Fisher) Microcom AX9612c For Sale (Bob Lindabury) ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME (Alfredo Villalobos) London Split (Carl Moore) Re: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans (Chip Rosenthal) Last Laugh! ISDN = ? (Ron Higgins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Draper Subject: Crunch Is Here! Date: 13 Jan 90 14:03:09 GMT Reply-To: John Draper Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Hello, Usually, I don't have time to read ALL the newsgroups on UseNet. There are too many of them. But every now and then, someone sends me Email when they hear people mentioning me. So, when I just got back from Germany, I got a ton of Email about discussions in this newsgroup, so I just HAD to pop on here and see whats up. I can't say I've been here before (I think I have, my .newsrc tells me so). So now that I've stepped up here on stage, I guess I should say that I *AM* the Cap'n Crunch, alive and well here in Alameda, recovering from Jet lag and trying to get accustommed to speaking English again. I know John Higdon from the Radio days when I used to work for KSJO. We would go up to each others transmitter site and hike around the hills. John worked at KOME at the time. So Moderator, please pass this on so I can have a chance to respond to those people talking about me. Re: Largest toll free area... It would have to be the big island of Hawaii. It's a local call to anywhere on the island. At least it WAS that way in 1984 when I lived there. And Bernie McKeever.... I can also vouch for "HiRise Joe". I met him in Memphis in 1974. All of us OLD-TIMERS know him very well. To Higdon... So THIS is where you've been hiding out on USenet... Gabe.. Re: USSR Phone system. Yes, I WAS in the USSR in Oct 1988, and while I was there, they had direct dial, but not to everywhere. For instance, while in Leningrad, I think it was possible to call Moscow, but in Tbilisi (Soviet Georgia) they have NO direct dial to other Soviet areas. While in Moscow, I could cal Vilnius, Lithuania by prefixing a (0222) in front of the number (IF it was 8 digits), or use (0227) if it was 7 digit number. There appears to be NO pattern associated with their area codes, and it often means that city codes also depend from WHERE you are calling, (similar with the early UK system). East Germany also has a hodge podge number assignment. For instance, when I call from East Berlin into West berlin, it's treated as an international call, and I have to dial 8 + 49 + (number - without berlin code). Normally, I gut a busy by just dialing the 8. I was not able to COMPLETE the call of course, because lines are always busy. The 8 is for international calls. However, calling from the WEST to EAST Berlin, is treated as a LOCAL call and an International call. You can dial: 00 - International 37 - Country code for DDR (East Germany) 2 - for East Berlin (number) But, it's also possible to dial (037) and treat it like calling another city. There are about 3 times more lines going from West to East than from East to West. West to East rates (just to East Berlin) are treated like a local call. By mid summer, they expect to get 1000 more lines. Gee!! perhaps it would take me just 9 hours instead of 12 hours to get through. I just returned from Berlin where I was consulting with a few WEST German Macintosh companies. I was standing on the wall on new years eve partying with 500,000 east and west Germans. Berlin was the place to be on New Years eve. And for all my friends out there, I have pieces of the Berlin wall for you!! Just don't all call me at once.... :-). And Andrei... A big fat hello to you and all your friends in Moscow.... Re: COCOT's - Avoid the payphone at the Standard station in Kingman, Az. they will NOT allow you to select ATT. Re: Direct dial to Moscow... ATT service to Moscow is new (only 6 months or so). I suspect that service to Moscow only is temporary. Their equipment is so funkey that ATT (And other carriers) are having compatability and beurocratic problems. More later, perhaps I can be pursuaded to talk a little about the German phone system (It's funkier than you think!!)..... Crunch UUCP: crunch@well.uucp ------------------------------ From: John Draper Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 25 Jan 90 10:59:17 GMT Reply-To: John Draper Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA I have heard that the indictments for these 3 people were handed down over a year ago but they were sealed. It seems awfully strange to me that they were officially handed out a week after the ATT outage. I guess the potential jurers will now have more sympathy towards the phone Companies. Any comments on this?? Is it Really true that the case is over 2 years old?? I remember hearing it from somewhere, perhaps a TV Newscast. John D. ------------------------------ From: eliseiu@mentor.com (Elisei Unteanu) Subject: Telephone Redialer Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 18:30:48 GMT When I call overseas, usually a recording answers, saying "all the circuits are busy in the country you are calling," or "your call cannot be completed at this time," etc. Sometimes it takes hours to get through. So I would like to have a device to redial automatically. I have investigated the usual commercially available devices, and none of them is satisfactory. They are designed to detect a busy signal. I need something which will hang up and redial when a recording answers. Has anyone heard of, or designed or built, such a device? Elisei Unteanu Mentor Graphics 626-7000 x 2339 eliseiu@mentor.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:37:10 EST From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Computerized Collect Calls On Jan. 7, New England Telephone began switching over to a new computerized system for handling collect calls from touch-tone pay phones. Instead of an operator, you get a computerized voice telling you to punch "one one" for a collect call. Then you say your name, the computer dials the other number, tells the person it's a collect call and then plays you back as you state your name. Just one problem. One of the reporters where I work was negotiating a sensitive interview and needed to talk to the editor-in-chief. He didn't have any change, so he tried calling collect. Another editor picked up the phone, thought it was one of those "goddamned computer telemarketing things" and promptly hung up. Adam Gaffin Middlesex News ("MetroWest's Hometown Newspaper, but you knew that!") ------------------------------ From: Axel Dunkel Subject: Hard Mail Services Date: 22 Jan 90 20:43:04 GMT Organization: C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, W.Germany Hello! I'd like to know which (e-mail) services offer to convert e-mails into "hard" paper mails. Does anyone know? Please mail, I'll summarize! Thank you! Axel Dunkel (ad@cat.UUCP) C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, West Germany [Moderator's Note: Here in the United States, almost all email services offer that option. MCI Mail, Telemail and AT&T Mail all offer to send hard copies through the Postal Service to someone who is not a subscriber to an email service. Further, the services here mostly all interconnect with each other; that is, a subscriber on MCI Mail can send email to someone on AT&T, etc.... Care to write an article for us about the Tele-Box Mail service in your country? PT] ------------------------------ From: Kenneth East Subject: Want Info on Text to Speech Units Date: 25 Jan 90 19:44:01 GMT Reply-To: Kenneth East Organization: Boston University I'd like pointers to makers of text-to-speech devices similar to DEC's Dectalk (which, as I understand, is no longer being made) What I'm looking for is something that can 1) vocalize an arbitrary chunk of ascii text sent to it via an RS-232 port. 2) act as an interface between the telephone line and an RS-232 port, and 3) decode incoming DTMF signals, and pass the identity of the key pressed out the RS-232 port. I'm primarily interested in stand alone devices (i.e. devices that do not require a slot in a computer). Any info will be greatfully appreciated. Please mail responses. I will summarize to the net if there's any interest. Thanks, Kenneth East keast@cs.bu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Those Wrong Numbers Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 25 Jan 90 12:57:57 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Pac*Bell has just graciously changed my 800 number at no charge. Now I can reveal just what idiocy was out there by talking actual numbers. My old number was 800 445-8886. The two top wrong number attempts by the dweebs out there were 800 445-8667 (Hilton) and 800 445-8880 (Red and White Fleet). For the life of me, I can't understand how I got those Hilton calls. But I finally found out the mechanism for all the Red and White calls. Last Monday, a woman insisted that I give her information about the Richmond ferries. It seemed impossible to dissuade her. I answered the phone, "Wrong Number", and then when she persisted I told her to try again. She called right back. I told her to dial 800 445-8880. She hung up and called right back again. I said, "Madam, what will it take to get you to dial the correct number?" She tried again. This time I was losing my patience. Suddenly the woman asked, "Do you think that maybe I should use the oh on the "Operator" button rather than the oh on the "6"?" That did it. It became crystal clear that I would never be rid of the Red and White fleet wrong numbers as long as I kept my current 800 assignment. I had overestimated the intelligence of the dialing public out there and that proved to be a major mistake. When I related this story to my Pac*Bell rep, she agreed to a free number change, which took effect this morning. I can't wait to see who calls now! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Sharon Lynne Fisher Subject: Fax Group IV Specs Date: 23 Jan 90 05:39:30 GMT Can anybody point me to people who can talk to me about fax Group IV specs and how they differ from Group III? Also, I'd be interested in pointers to any other "new and nifty things" under development for fax technology. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) Subject: Microcom AX9612c For Sale Date: 25 Jan 90 09:56:25 GMT MICROCOM AX9612c Modem for Sale The AX9612c is the highest-performing member of the Microcom AX family of error correcting modems along with the AX9624c. The AX family combines the Microcom SX and the Hayes Smartmodem AT command sets, with enhancements for maximum flexibility. The AX family achieves new levels of error-free performance through the Microcom Networking Protocol (MNP) class 5 data compression, and MNP Class 6 service. Features: o Speeds from 110 to 9600 bps (skipping 2400). o Bell 212A and 103, CCITT V.22 bis and asyncrhronous, and V.29 synchronous standards. o MNP Class 6 for high-speed reliable connections at port speeds up to 19200 bps. o MNP Class 5 compression, for effective throughput during MNP connections of up to 19200 bps. o Universal Link Negotiation lets the modem automatically connect wi8th other MNP modems at the highest common speed. o Many other features, can be upgraded to AX9624c at costs from $50 to $150 depending on dealer. This is a great modem and it listed new for $1495.00. It is in perfect working condition in the original box complete with manual and power supply. This modem can easily be upgraded to the AX9624c (allowing 2400 bps connections) with the change of a ROM chip. I am letting this modem go for the low price of $500.00. If you are interested you may either call my home phone 201/560-7353 or my work number 201/271-8878 or you can leave me email or call my BBS. Info for those are in my signature below. Bob ____________________ Pro-Graphics BBS 201/469-0049 _____________________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854 ------------------------------ From: Alfredo Villalobos Subject: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME Date: 25 Jan 90 18:26:16 GMT Reply-To: Alfredo Villalobos Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain We are looking for ISDN (Primary and basic rate) and V.35 (64 kb/s) boards for buses AT and VME. Drivers for UNIX Sys V Rel 3.2 and UNIX BSD 4.3 are of interest too. Any help would be appreciated. Alfredo Villalobos avq@dit.upm.es ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 14:03:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: London Split Yes, it has previously been written in the Digest that some people wonder why it will be this: 071 inner London 081 outer London instead of this: 01 inner London (i.e. no change) 071 or 081 outer London I did visit England recently. The only guess I could make would possibly be standardization of number lengths. But I wonder how Gatwick (noticed numbers of varying lengths on pay phones at that airport) would fit into such a scheme. (Gatwick city code is 0293.) ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans Date: 26 Jan 90 00:55:29 GMT Reply-To: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael Dorl - MACC) writes: >Does anyone know what typical delay times are for short (say 100 mile) >56K DDS and T1 lines? AT&T TR62411 [Dec88] says, "ACCUNET T1.5 circuits will experience one way absolute delay of no more than 60ms end-to-end." This does not include the delay in the CPE (i.e. the boxes you hang on the wires). I don't have the DDS pubs handy, so I can't help there. Chip Rosenthal / chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG / Unicom Systems Development [Moderator's Note: Chip Rosenthal was formerly the Usenet gateway manager for comp.dcom.telecom. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Higgins Subject: Last Laugh! ISDN = ? Date: 26 Jan 90 01:37:09 GMT Reply-To: Ron Higgins Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc. Here's another one to add to your collection: ISDN = I Smell Dollars Now! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #53 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Fri Jan 26 04:21:45 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA03225; Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:21:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27849; 26 Jan 90 2:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27258; 26 Jan 90 1:44 CST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 1:44:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #54 Message-Id: <9001260144.ab13927@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jan 90 01:43:49 CST Volume 10 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (John Stanley) Re: 911 and Pay Phones (Dan Lance) Re: Caller ID (Peter Marshall) Re: Caller ID (Steve Vance) Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Min (Steve Vance) Re: How to Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTS Are Better) (S. Vance) Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (D. Smallberg) Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Jim Breen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 10:38:22 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private In article <3181@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) writes: > ... My Concise Oxford has 'operator of an amateur >radio station' as one of the meanings of 'ham'. Since this would >include owners of CB sets, it is pretty loose in itself. If you want >to maintain a tighter definition, e.g a *licenced* amateur radio >station operator, I would agree that the eavesdropper was not a "ham". Sorry, but CB ownership does not make a person a ham. The definition of amateur radio station is spelled out in the FCC regs, and most certainly does not include CB. I.e., you are mis-parsing the phrase "amateur radio station" as (amateur) (radio station), where it is really (amateur radio) (station). To be a member of the amateur radio service, you must be licensed. If you are not licensed, you are not a member, and thus not a ham. If you are attempting to operate an unlicensed amateur radio station, there is a different word for it. Pirate. Or maybe Clandestine. Or, Illegal. If you are operating under the rules for the Citizen's Radio Service (CB) then you are a CB'er. There is even a question if a CB station is an "amateur radio-station". Radio station operators (both professional and amateur) may fix/tune/modify/build their own equipment, as long as it perorms within certain technical limitations which the operators are required to know. CB station owners are required to purchase only type-accepted equipment built by a manufacturer who has proven to the FCC that it operates within those technical limits, and is prohibited from modifying it in any way. They may perform only those adjustments certified by the manufacturer to not cause operation outside the technical limits. They must take a defective CB to a licensed technician for any repairs. For those who are not hams and are confused by the distinction "licensed amateur radio operator" (ham) and "licensed amateur radio station", a brief explanation. The amateur radio license (FCC Form 660) licenses both the operator and a fixed station at a specified address. The ham may operate from non-fixed stations (car, boat, plane, bicycle, etc.) as well. The only differences between ham and non-ham pertinent to the subject are 1) hams are supposed to know the rules regarding what they can do with intercepted traffic (nothing except have a private chuckle) while Joe Populace might not, and 2) hams have a license and investment in radio gear to protect and so should have less tendency to break the law by revealing the contents of intercepted traffic. >OK. Maybe I was loose in my terminology in equating ham with anyone >who owned a scanner. Yes. But I think the Concise Oxford was a mite concise in not specifying how to parse the definition. In the same vein, I might wonder why you are looking in a brief shoe for word definitions (-; . (Smiley upside down for easier viewing from the bottom of the planet). nn m m RRR i John Stanley N8GFO 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 #include stanley@nmri.com ------------------------------ From: Dan Lance Subject: Re: 911 and Pay Phones Date: 22 Jan 90 17:15:23 GMT Reply-To: Dan Lance Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. In article vanembur@porthos. rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes: >Something I've noticed that I find completely ridiculous... >Some of the third party pay phones that you see around nowadays (in >particular, Intellicall pay phones) won't let you make 911 calls >without depositing 20 cents!!! This, I feel, is completely ridiculous >and unacceptable. Anybody know if there are any laws on the books >relating to this? (If not, there should be!) One of the new "innovations" in US telephony are COCOTs ("Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones"), which are owned by private individuals or businesses rather than telcos (short for "telephone company", for those of you who aren't telecommunications junkies). They are usually leased or sold to business owners. These phones are rapidly replacing telco payphones in some parts of the country. The big problem with COCOTs is that the private companies which sell and maintain them do not always program them in compliance with local laws and regulations -- many operators use them to run out-and-out scams, such as charging for 911 calls, preventing equal access to long distance carriers and operators, or overcharging for calls. Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) do not always adequately regulate these firms. Note that the owner of the business which houses the offending COCOT may not even be aware of the scams being done by the COCOT operator -- or he or she just may not care. If you find a phone which doesn't allow free 911 access, let the phone's owner know about it. (COCOTs are required to have the name of the owner on them. Some do not, though, in which case you should talk to the business owner instead.) Give them a few days to correct the problem -- the problem may be due to an honest mistake -- before taking any further action. If the phone or business owner gives you the runaround, or doesn't fix the problem within a short time, call or write your local Public Utility Commission and make a formal complaint. Better yet, get your department to make an official complaint. Usually, this will get results. Comp.dcom.telecom has been carrying a discussion on COCOTs for some time. I've crossposted this reply there -- hopefully the telecom wizards there will have something additional to say on the subject. > Bill Van Emburg > Rutgers University > (vanembur@cs.rutgers.edu) > (...!rutgers!cs.rutgers.edu!vanembur) Dan Lance drl@corpane.uucp corpane!drl@e.ms.uky.edu Corpane Industries Middletown Fire Department Anchorage Rescue Squad Louisville, KY Middletown, KY Anchorage, KY ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 13 Jan 90 17:14:12 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA David Lewis' 1/10 post re: CNI with 800, omits that same is also the case with 900 services. Mr. Lewis and others may also wish to acquaint themselves with prior Bellcore activity in the area of telecom privacy as an "emerging issue," particularly the work of Dr. James Katz. In any case, we are not talking only about ISDN and 800 in this context. Re: John Higdon: Would appear that there is more than PacBell's prudence and responsiveness at work here. Try, for instance, the "Eaves" blocking bill passed by the CA Legislature. Try, for instance, PacBell's prior experience in getting burned by public reaction to company proposals at the PUC which were seen as privacy-invasive or intrusive. Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case; and re: blocking in CA, this is addressed in the so-called "Eaves" bill passed by that legislature. ------------------------------ From: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 25 Jan 90 17:35:57 GMT Reply-To: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA In article <3039@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >I'd be a bit upset if I had to pay for Caller-ID and then found that any >subscriber who wanted to could suppress the service I'm paying for >when he/she calls me. I think the concept is that you can tell if someone is blocking their number to you before you answer the phone. If you don't want to receive calls from people who are blocking their numbers, then you don't answer those calls. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv qantel!stv@lll-winken.llnl.gov Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA ------------------------------ From: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? Date: 23 Jan 90 23:06:42 GMT Reply-To: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA In article <3038@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >My default has always been AT&T, but if I use "10222" or "10333", the >bill for the call comes from MCI or Sprint directly, just as if I was Sprint is 10777, n'est pas? 777=SPR for Sprint. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv qantel!stv@lll-winken.llnl.gov Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA ------------------------------ From: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) Date: 25 Jan 90 02:40:42 GMT Reply-To: stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA In article <2859@accuvax.nwu.edu> kent%tfd@uunet.uu.net (Kent Hauser) writes: >Syntax U (universal): 1 NPA NXX XXXX > Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line. YES! This is a GOOD IDEA! Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money, it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes". When you do so, your call goes thru. When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent deposit." You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL. This is the same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not working! Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv qantel!stv@lll-winken.llnl.gov Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: 26 Jan 90 02:23:56 GMT Reply-To: David Smallberg Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <3126@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kelly Goen writes: >In article <3045@accuvax.nwu.edu> das@cs.ucla.edu (David A Smallberg) writes: >>The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since >>in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some >>accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA. >... IF these individuals are indeed >guilty of the offenses mentioned above then they are guilty of one very >major error that of STUPIDITY... by going out and cracking again after >already being caught and having their collective hand slapped I'll go along with "stupidity". They were first detected at UCLA when someone noticed someone logged into an otherwise unused special-purpose account rummaging through the password file. The next day, a faculty member who never logs in was logged in. "talk"ing to him and asking questions (e.g. how was the conference you were just at?) revealed that the person on the account was clearly not the faculty member, and a phone call to the faculty member confirmed this (and the faculty member said his password was just his first name). Now if I were the cracker, at this point I'd be outta there *real* fast. Not these guys! The transcripts of the on-line conversations between "Kev" and "Ron" reveal that they considered that maybe they've been detected and that they'd better lay low; but then they immediately dropped the topic and went on to talk about something else. Their UNIX expertise was not high. According to Brian Reid's account of how he detected the breakin at Stanford, the cracker's attempt at squirreling away setuid shells caused logins to take a noticeably longer time than usual. They apparently didn't think anyone would notice. I got the feeling these were guys not used to thinking in terms of multiuser systems, not being alert to the fact that "who"s and "ps"s casually invoked by someone else could expose them. David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 02:17:25 GMT In article <3177@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HANK@barilvm.bitnet (Hank Nussbacher) writes: > Cost comparison of 64kb digital service > in various countries > Thank you Hank. Very interesting. The readers might like to see the Aus equivalents. (I state them in $US at $US0.75 = $A1.00) > Country 5km 10km 50km 200km 500km > ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ > Average | 589.4 | 919.4 | 1865 | 3663.9 | 4996.4 | > ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ > Australia(ISDN) 173 173 385 677 834 (DDS) 812 812 812(*) 1261(*) 2250(*) In the above I have included $60 pm which is about the rental of the BRI service. The low price of ISDN here is accentuated when it is compared with the 48k Digital Data Service, with which it will compete. Note that the ISDN rate is for a single circuit. There is a progressive discount as you get more lines so that 10 circuits cost about 7 times as much as 1 circuit. (*) difficult to make comparisons because DDS effectively has a three-step transmission charge which is zero for intra-city and then breaks at the 1200km mark. It also depends on whether it is a big city or a small one. I guess that in most of the countries Hank listed 1200 km would see you over the border. Frankly I think the Aus. prices are amazing. Telecom here ia often regarded as very expensive, some say second only to Bundespost. Things appear to be changing. _______ 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 3 573 2748 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #54 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Fri Jan 26 05:18:02 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA05137; Fri, 26 Jan 90 05:17:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05753; 26 Jan 90 3:54 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27849; 26 Jan 90 2:51 CST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 2:40:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #55 Message-Id: <9001260240.ab09295@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jan 90 02:38:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Special Issues This Weekend; Mail Overflow (TELECOM Moderator) GTE - Making Money the Sleazy Way (Chip Rosenthal) Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....) (David Lewis) Re: The Big PUC Give-Away (Peter Marshall) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Peter Marshall) Re: ISDN S,T Interface Differences (Jim Breen) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Bob Langford) Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (David Tamkin) Re: Sprint Stuff (Peter da Silva) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 1:53:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues This Weekend; Mail Overflow Special issues of the Digest planned for this weekend include a rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore to my reply on his posting of 'computer friends'; a two-part special mailing with a reference listing of all telephone companies in the United States; and a more detailed look at Mr. Paulsen, one of the 'computer friends' defendants. Which brings me to my next point: Right now, the inbound queue is *jammed* with unprinted mail. There is about a two day backlog -- not including the lengthy special issues mentioned above -- of items for publication. Most of what is here now which has not yet appeared will be distributed by the end of the weekend, at the latest. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: GTE - Making Money the Sleazy Way Date: 26 Jan 90 00:31:09 GMT Reply-To: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas Now I'm beginning to understand why the Texas PUC tried to beat down GTE's rates and force customer refunds during the last review. These folks are sleazy. Called yesterday to disconnect my service in preparation for my move from Dallas to Austin. I asked them to place a recording on my number directing folks to my new number. They said they would be glad to. For the tidy sum of $11.20 a month. My jaw hit the counter. In all the states I've lived in and telcos I've dealt with, I have never seen such a thing. To do a quick reality check, I called down the road to SWB to see about their policy. They do not charge. I called back the GTE office to get the poop on this. They claim that the Texas General Exchange Tariff section 13 [June 20, 1985] authorizes this charge. Tomorrow, I'm going to have to swing by their business office and check this out. I wonder who the weasel is that sold the PUC on this. I did contact the Texas PUC shortly afterwards, and will be following up with a letter. I got the impression that they receive a lot of complaints about GTE's service connect charges. Anyway, I learned my lesson. I will never again live in an area serviced by GTE. Chip Rosenthal / chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG / Unicom Systems Development [Moderator's Note: Chip Rosenthal was formerly the Usenet gateway manager for comp.dcom.telecom. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....) Date: 25 Jan 90 19:19:17 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <3160@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > (Incidentally, information > systems technicians claim that, generally speaking, LESS, not more, > technology is required to transmit data via telephone circuits than is > required for voice transmission. If this is true, then those of us > who use telephone services for data transmission are actually placing > less of a burden on the telephone system than does your grandmother's > regular Sunday afternoon call.) The phrase "... generally speaking, less technology is required to transmit data via telephone circuits..." is sufficiently vague and nebulous as to be semantically null... The relevent factors are what are the traffic engineering impacts of data traffic versus voice traffic. What do you mean by "telephone circuits", what do you mean by "less technology", and what do you mean by "transmit data"? If a "telephone circuit" means everything between and including two 2500 sets, then you clearly need more hardware to transmit data -- you have to put an acoustic coupler on each end. Does that mean more "technology"? On the other end of the spectrum, if by "telephone circuits" you mean a twisted pair, you need some amount of hardware to send either voice or data. Which needs "more technology" -- the one that requires more $$? The one that needs higher tech equipment? The sentence could mean anything. The hypothesis that any "data surcharge" using traffic engineering theory is based on is that calls carrying data traffic have statistically significantly different traffic engineering characteristics than do calls carrying voice traffic. The PSTN is engineered for certain traffic parameters. These parameters include number of call attempts per hour, percentage of call attempts abandoned, percentage of call attempts with no called party response, and (most significantly for this case) average holding time (and if you want to get fancy, distribution of holding time). The hypothesis goes that calls carrying data traffic have a longer mean holding time, and are generally have a distribution more skewed towards long holding times, than do calls carrying voice traffic. In addition, there may be less call attempts abandoned (your modem is less likely to get frustrated over five rings and hang up) and a higher percentage of call completions (the answering computer isn't likely to be in the shower). While a single call carrying data traffic with a 1-hour holding time is admittedly the same as a single call carrying voice traffic with a 1-hour holding time, the hypothesis is that the presence of a significantly different class of traffic can require re-engineering of the network to handle the additional service demands which would not otherwise exist. Therefore, there is effectively a new class of service which should support the cost of this re-engineering. There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. FIrst of all, there have been very few attempts to experimentally verify it. The data really aren't there to confirm or deny whether data traffic exists as a statistically significantly different class of traffic from voice traffic. So attempts to bill differently are really (in my view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic "must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic. The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind the times. The characteristics of data traffic are changing as the characteristics of computing change. While ten years ago it may have been true that the vast majority of calls carrying data traffic were long holding time interactive terminal sessions, the trend is to more and more true "distributed systems" where the data communication tends to be more high-speed, off-peak bulk transfers. A whole bunch of five-minute data calls between 1 and 4 AM, face it, aren't going to impose an unmanageable load on the PSTN... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: The Big PUC Give-Away Date: 26 Jan 90 15:02:41 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Thanks to John Higdon for risking "curmudgeon" status here. Obviously, what he describes can be generalized beyond PacBell. TURN, BTW, seems to have been not invisible. Perhaps a more interesting question would relate to the CA Legislature's visibility or lack thereof, however. Nevertheless, the "incentive regulation" gospel spreads. In the allegedly populist Northwest, the WA PUC is expected to issue an order likely approving a US West version of "incentive regulation" imminently; and meanwhile, back in CA, the PUC Chair was apparently quoted in a recent Business Week piece to the effect that the CA PUC's approval of "incentive regulation" for PacBell and GTE-CA would do good things for profits. ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 12 Jan 90 14:47:05 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA More re: Edward Greenberg's post on 900 Service: Similar uses of 900 are cropping up recently. Example: a Seattle TV station recently carried a documentary on the Iran hostage situation with a so- called "900 spot," inserted, inviting viewers to call in their opinions, which would then be compiled and forwarded to "policy-makers." To further develop Mr. Greenberg's point, it should be noted that such 900 applications appear often to use ANI; a fact that is not typically pointed out to the caller, whose number is disclosed. When this dimension was pointed out to the general manager of the Seattle TV station noted above, he directed his sales reps to ask syndicators of programming including 900 spots(and 800)if the 900 applications included such uses of ANI features; and if they did, to indicate the station would not carry the material. ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: ISDN S,T Interface Differences Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 01:46:01 GMT In article <3175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zweig@cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig) writes: > My understanding is that the S interface > is how terminals talk to an NT2 (like a PBX or terminal-concentrator) > and that the T interface is just the raw 2B+D bit-pipe to the network. Crudely put, but basically correct. > So are the physical interfaces the same for S and T? That is, could I > buy an ISDN terminal and plug the end of the cable that sticks out > straight into my NT1 (or, rather, Illinois Bell's NT1) on Tuesdays and > then plug it into our ISDN PBX's NT2 jack the rest of the week? Or, > when mention is made of the setup in which S and T coincide, are they > talking about a terminal that just happens to speak T-interface > electrical signals instead of S? The physical (i.e. Layer 1) interfaces for S and T are identical. (I.430/I.431). Whether your ISDN terminal would work depends on the other layers. If it can handle full LAP-D, get the TEIs and SAPIs right and carry out the full I.451 dialogue with your exchange, all should be OK. In Australia at least, I believe Telecom will be certifying that whatever connects to the T can do this before it is allowed to connect. > Also, it is still unclear to me if there is supposed to be a single > electrical interface at each of S, T, U or whether these are just > reference points in diagrams -- i.e. my AT&T terminal's S-interface is > totally different from my Fujitsu's S-interface electrically and > mechanically, but they are both S interfaces in the sense that they > both define how a terminal talks to (in this case each respective) > NT2? There sure is supposed to be, well for S & T any way. U is quite another matter. I.430 section 8 is quite comprehensive in its definition of the electrical aspects. It specifies ISO DIS 8877 (Connector and Contact Assignments for ISDN Basic Access Interface at Reference Points S and T) for the plug. _______ 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 3 573 2748 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 13:34 EST From: LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Just as a test, I called C7P Telephone here in Richmond to see what info they could/would provide. I called the residential customer-service number in the phone book, and asked which long distance companies served my home. The rep. asked for my phone number, and after a couple of minutes, gave me the list of six companies. She gave me no hassle about which ones come before others, as others on the net have told about. The list came in no obvious order that I could see. The rep. was unable (she said) to give me the access codes for these carriers, but did have their phone numbers. All but one of them is listed in the local white-pages phone book. In spite of the above success, there is a definite trend towards hiding this kind of information from the public. After a careful reading of the new phone book (December 1989), there is only ONE SENTENCE about how to make a long-distance call outside the local LATA (although they don't use the term LATA). The one sentence that appears in on the page about ordering new service, NOT a section about long-distance, because there isn't one! (Except for two pages showing an area code map and area codes for some cities [not the new code in New Jersey, though!]). I'm really getting steamed about this; I may write a letter to the local editorial page this weekend. Bob Langford, Medical College of Virginia langford@crc.crc.vcu.edu ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:48:05 CST The forenameless wrote in Telecom Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51: | Here's a brillant thought. Why don't the BOC's list all the access | codes in the phone book. In my NJ Bell phone book, it justs states | that a list of them is available from NJ Bell! Considering everything | else that's in there (stadium seating charts, etc.) a list of long | distance access codes doesn't seem too far out of line. Here in Chicago, Illinois Bell (a subsidiary of an RBOC as its name implies) does not mention 10XXX dialing in its directories at all. Central Telephone (an independent) gives a partial list of available 1+ carriers, with their contact numbers and with the 10XXX codes for those who want their 10XXX codes showing. From the 1987 book to the 1988 book AT&T, Allnet, and ITT had their codes pulled: the companies are still listed, but there are just hyphens where 10288, 10444, or 10488 would be printed. Litel pulled its code as of the 1989 book; as of 1987 Tri-Tel's code was already unlisted. 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: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:26:37 GMT Since the FONCARD numbers and the AT&T numbers are drawn from separate pools with no protection against duplications I would be disturbed if they *were* interchangable. Now my FONcard is not *currently* based on a legal phone number, but one day after we run out of N(1/0)X area codes it may well be. SPRINT's just planning ahead. _--_|\ 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?" `-_-' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #55 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 28 02:31:29 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA16122; Sun, 28 Jan 90 02:31:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30025; 28 Jan 90 1:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14347; 28 Jan 90 0:00 CST Date: Sat, 27 Jan 90 23:25:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #56 Message-Id: <9001272325.ab04211@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jan 90 23:25:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (David Tamkin) RSVP = Residential Centrex for C&P (John Boteler) Caller ID Tech Specs (Joseph Jesson) Zip/area Code Directory (Carl Moore (VLD) Annenberg/CPB Initiative to go Forward (ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet) Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (David Tamkin) Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes (Carl Moore) Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute? (John Higdon) Re: Hum Filter Needed (Kelly Pearce) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 21:31:26 CST In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 52, Chris Johnson complained about MCI's telling telcos to change a customer's primary carrier to MCI and a customer's not hearing about it until the reaffiliation charge appears on the local telco's bill. MCI is truly rotten about that. Here is my story with that problem: At the end of December, 1988, Telenet announced the surprise PCP rate increase, pulling that holiday weekend trick, doing all the other nasty things we discussed here at the time. A number of us were so p.o.'ed at United Telecommunications that we stopped using US Sprint as well. Reach Out America was impractical for me, so I took a pass on AT&T and opened 10XXX accounts with both MCI and Teleconnect in January, 1989. (Teleconnect is now part of Telecom*USA and is my primary carrier now.) On both I registered my two lines and my parents' two lines. My primary carrier had been US Sprint; my parents' has been AT&T all along. Now that works fine with Telecom*USA: I dial 1+ or 10835+ or my parents dial 10835+ and it all gets billed to my Telecom*USA account; all our calls together count toward making the $5 monthly minimum, for example. That's the way it was supposed to work with MCI. (The MCI account has no minimum, but it does have volume discounts.) I repeat: "supposed to". On my parents' May 19, 1989, bill from Illinois Bell were two $5 reaffiliation fees. My mother called me when the bill came and asked me what that was about. I asked her to dial 1-700-555-4141 from both lines and to let me know what she heard. Both went to MCI's recording. I phoned Illinois Bell about it. Illinois Bell said that the order came from MCI. "You honor whatever the carriers say and charge the customer for it?" "The carriers would never lie to us." Uh huh. Illinois Bell switched my parents' lines back to AT&T and credited them for the reaffiliation charges. I called MCI. They apologized but couldn't figure out HOW such a thing had happened; there was *nothing* on the account, they assured me, that indicated I wanted 1+ service on any of the four telephone numbers on it. The account was just as I had ordered it: four telephone numbers for 10222 dialing and two calling cards. OK... I had occasion in late June to make a long-distance call from my parents'. I placed it via MCI so that it would appear on a bill I would be paying anyway instead of the AT&T pages from their Illinois Bell bill. 10222+1+NPA-NNX-XXXX. But it doesn't get billed to my MCI account; it shows up on an MCI page of their July 19 Illinois Bell bill! I called MCI. They couldn't have phone numbers at different addresses on the same account, so the account could not stay the way I ordered it, so they had to take my parents' numbers off my MCI account. Still, they figured that my parents must want MCI, so they had sent Illinois Bell the reaffiliation order. They apologized for not having explained. So it's settled, I figure. Then in August Central Telephone called me. They had received notice from MCI to change my primary carrier to them. It was dated the previous May, but they had just received it. "No way, no way at all, but thank you very much for checking with me first." Then I told them what Illinois Bell did to my parents. I called MCI. I yelled at them. They apologized, saying again that they didn't know HOW such a thing could have happened. Yeah, yeah ... A while later, I placed a 10222 call from my own home. It shows up not on my MCI bill but on an MCI page of my September 4 Centel bill. What?? This time MCI told me that after the July call, they had taken my numbers off the account and put my parents' numbers on it, which I had said were supposed to be on it for 10222 dialing. They had tried putting my numbers onto a 1+ account, but I couldn't use it because I told Centel not to reaffiliate me. That left my numbers unknown to MCI, so when I dialed 10222 they had to bill me through my telco. Sigh. Well, come mid-October I get another call from Centel. MCI had notified them to reaffiliate me and they wanted to check with me first. Grrr (at MCI, not at Centel). So I phoned MCI. Finally a rep there admitted that my account had been coded for 1+ service, and that was what was generating all the requests to Illinois Bell and to Centel to reaffiliate our numbers. He went through the whole history with me, and it turned out that the only part of my account that MCI staff hadn't played games with was the two calling cards. He swore to me that the coding was removed, and at least I know that nothing has gone wrong for the last three months. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: RSVP = Residential Centrex for C&P Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 2:44:46 EST From: John Boteler An acquaintance of mine couldn't sit still the other day, so he bugged the C&P Business Office all day. One of the morsels of info he came up with: R.S.V.P. Service Offering is C&P Tephone Cumpny's name for Residential Centrex. Details are sketchy until the literature comes in, but we know that: 1. The package includes Speed*Calling, Call*Waiting (UGH!), Call*Forwarding, Call*Transfer, Call*Forwarding Variable; you know, the usual Centrex stuff. Preliminary info said this package costs an additional $8/month. 2. For an additional $3.50/month 3-Way*Calling may be added to the package. 3. [Empty] Those in the Lesser Washington Area might be interested in this service; I know I should demand a cut for this since their overwhelming marketing effort has left this a secret service! Happy dialing! John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE [VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible] {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: Joseph Jesson Subject: Caller ID Tech Specs Date: 21 Jan 90 04:02:18 GMT Organization: Jolnet, Public access Unix, Orland Park (Joliet) IL Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area. Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first ring? I want to build a phase lock loop decoder... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 9:43:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Zip/area Code Directory As I am notifying Paul Cook, here is the reference to the zip/area code directory I was talking about: The Zip/Area Code Directory, compiled by Ruthie Marks, Jan. 1986 edition, ISBM 0-08576-083-X, 48 pages, price $3.50 printed on cover (subject to change) Publisher: Pilot Books, 103 Cooper St., Babylon, NY 11702 Phone 516-422-2225 [Moderator's Note: But isn't this sort of old and outdated? We know of several area code changes since 1986, and there have been zip code changes as well.....does Ruthie have plans to update her book? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 15:41:59 EST From: ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet Subject: Annenberg/CPB Initiative to go Forward The Project seeks proposals from a 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. Funds of up to $150,000 are available for individual colleges, and up to $300,000 for groups of colleges. The Initiative, "New Pathways to a Degree: Using Technologies to Open the College," will also help the winning colleges work together on policy issues, evaluation, and dissemination. As you may have heard, the Annenberg Foundation, which has aided the Annenberg/CPB Project in the past, has indicated its intention to suspend support due to a change in the Foundation's tax status. This change does not affect the Initiative, however, since funds are already in hand to carry out the Initiative and other activities. If you need a copy of the 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 Remember, the submission deadline is May 15, 1990. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:41:25 CST John Higdon wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51: | Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that | bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. In the case | of Sprint, the card was obtained long before the FON business from US | Telecom, which Sprint continued to honor after the merger. My Pac*Bell | card was issued without an imbedded phone number at my request. It, of | course, works perfectly with AT&T. When the old GTE Sprint and U.S.Tel merged, US Sprint replaced the old nine-digit, no-surcharge travel codes with the fourteen-digit surcharged FONcard numbers. Naturally, they sent me a number including my telephone number. I phoned them screaming: it's bad enough that they stick us with a surcharge they never seemed to need before, but to reduce my security from nine digits to four was unthinkable. The automaton on the telephone gave the preprogrammed speech that, few as the hacks of nine-digit codes were, there had never been any fourteen-digit codes broken. I informed it that they didn't give me a fourteen-digit code, they gave me a FOUR-digit code. It has four digits' security but requires the punching effort of fourteen: the worst of both worlds. "And if you tell me, `But it's so easy to remember,' I'll cancel my Sprint service right now," I added. Suddenly the customer service droid was able to offer me a "scrambled PIN" as it called it and to disable the one that contained my telephone number. When I first ordered a card from MCI, they too did me the honor of assuming numbers scare me and sent me one with my telephone number plus four more digits. I phoned them immediately, but it was two years later than the US Sprint incident, and their rep knew what I was objecting to. When we go to NNX area codes the first ten digits of any calling card number will match a potential local telephone number, but that's unavoidable, and it shouldn't be the local phone number of the person whose name is on the card. Come to think of it, why are our names embossed on the cards? For the PR value of making us feel important? So that after everyone at a party tosses his or her calling card into a pile, we know which card goes back home with whom? 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, 26 Jan 90 14:58:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes Someone asked why use N10 for 2 upcoming area codes in California. (510, splitting from 415 and getting East Bay area; and 310, splitting from 213 and getting the coastal part of L.A. area.) I'll summarize from memory from at least 2 previous Digest postings: 510 area: 903 had already been chosen for area to split from 214 in Texas (why, I don't know), 909 looked too much like 707, and 917 was only one digit off from 916. (707 and 916 both border what will be 510). 310 area: 210 and 310 were left after eliminating what's now in use as prefixes in 213 (at or since 213/818 split?). 310 was chosen because it was easier to distinguish from 213. 2 recently-chosen prefixes on the East Coast raised my eyebrows: earlier messages (in telecom?) wondered about choice of 638 for Bel Air, Md. (area 301) where 836 and 838 were already in use, and this month I discovered, in the Wilmington (Del.) directory, references in the call guide to 215-558 (Chester Heights, Pa., which already has 358 and 459). Your first choice for a new prefix would be something sharing the 1st 2 digits with an existing prefix in the same service area. Thus, 301-392 was put in in Elkton, Md. back around 1980; the existing prefix there was 398. But more recently, North East, Md., which already had 301-287, got 920 because no other 28x was available. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? Date: 26 Jan 90 03:22:25 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes: > Sprint is 10777, n'est pas? 777=SPR for Sprint. Ah, but you ignore the wonderful world of mergers and takeovers. In the (almost) beginning there was US Telecom (10333) and SPC, then later, GTE Sprint. Then there was one--US Sprint, who adopted 10333 as the access code while 10777 was (and still is being) phased out. I notice that calls will go through on 10777, but my Sprint rep (and who could doubt his Sprint rep) tells me to use 10333. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kelly Pearce Subject: Re: Hum Filter Needed Date: 26 Jan 90 22:13:21 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Ogden, UT In article <2982@accuvax.nwu.edu>, fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > Do we need to post a basic phone wiring tutorial to the Digest? > phones be posted? ....am I unintentionally volunteering myself by > Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy Yes, I think it is a good idea and you most definitely, unintentionally volunteered. |^) Kelly M. Pearce, DLA Systems Automation Center, (801)399-6549, AV 790-0549 UUCP: ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dsac!dsachg1!kpearce INTERNET: kpearce@dsachg1.dsac.dla.mil * Opinions are still mine, but the gov't has a claim on everything else. :^) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #56 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 28 03:42:09 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA18520; Sun, 28 Jan 90 03:42:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25662; 28 Jan 90 2:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30025; 28 Jan 90 1:05 CST Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 0:10:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #57 Message-Id: <9001280010.ab19316@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jan 90 00:10:21 CST Volume 10 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 0+ in Area 213 (and 312/708) (David Tamkin) Re: Sprint Stuff (Carol Springs) Re: Who's Using Whom? (Robert Gutierrez) Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (John Higdon) Re: London Split (Jeremy Barker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: 0+ in Area 213 (and 312/708) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:43:46 CST Carl Moore wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51: | Years ago (c. 1981 or 1982) I was wondering about 0+7D in area code | 213 (L.A. area, using NXX prefixes and not yet split to form 818), and | was told that timeout was used to distinguish, say, 0-413-2345 from | 0-413-234-5678. Now I just discovered that 0+7D is not in the August | 1989-90 Pacific Bell White Pages, Greater Los Angeles. On page A67 | (high page # due to divestiture?) there, it has: Pacific Bell Calling | Card Service: "How to Use Your Calling Card with Touch-Tone Phone with | Touch-Tone Service"; also, "With Rotary Dial Phones", and both of them | start with: "Within and outside your Area Code, dial a. "0", b. Area | Code, c. Phone Number When the Chicago area prepared for NXX, Illinois Bell announced that along with requiring 1+10D for calling outside 312, 0+312+7D would be necessary for assisted calls within 312. Centel continued to accept 0+7D (plus timeout, I imagine), per their instructions up through the August, 1989, directory. I moved to Centel territory in 1987 but have never tried 0+7D, using 0+312+ 7D instead, which has worked just fine. With the recent area code split, 0+708+7D or 0+312+7D will certainly be required for operator-assisted calling across the new NPA boundary. 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: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Organization: The World Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:01:39 GMT In article <3185@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that >bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. [....] >The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in >my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call >saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that >they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing >that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one >digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have >access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are >sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens" >for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T >for this?) Excuse, please, I'm new to this Digest and have deliberately avoided trying the standard jargon lest I misuse it. But I'm curious about John's use of the term "sleaze" here. I'm moderately familiar with terms like phone phreaking, but this is a piece of slang I haven't come across before. Is it part of the vernacular, or just an example of John's use of irony? Do most people consider the "casual billing" of one's local phone company sleazy? Is that because AOSes have been known to do this without checking the PIN--and that's where the casual part comes in? I would readily agree that "test calls" of the number with some other carrier are inherently sleazy--let's hope it's just that the databases are getting better. carols@world.std.com Carol Springs [Moderator's Note: In most of the discussion here over the past couple of months, 'sleaze' has been used to describe the content of the programming on many, perhaps most 900/976 numbers. Casual billing is not a sleazy tactic; actually it is a great service, and allows flexibility in the use of 'casual' (or non-one-plus) long distance carriers. But the practice some AOS' use of making a 'test call' over AT&T to validate a card (rather than subscribe to some expensive and probably unavailable validation service is a 'sleazy' technique. PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Date: 26 Jan 90 20:22:14 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC In article <3180@accuvax.nwu.edu>, m21198@mwvm.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes: (X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 51, message 1 of 9) > Robert Gutierrez wrote in v10 #35 that, contrary to what I had said in > v10 #30, some IEC trunk groups do overflow to trunks into another > IEC's network. Unfortunately he has committed the fallacy of > listening to what I said rather than to what I meant. All I meant to > assert was that access to one IEC's network is not obtained via > another IEC's switched facilities (with the interesting exception I > discussed)........... Ah, yes. Humble apologies for that error...... ....but, [...] > Switched access via AT&T seemed to be the original theory of why > Higdon could not access US Sprint during the AT&T incident last MLK > Day. (Actually, even that isn't quite true: He had been told there > was a cable cut.) No one has yet commented on the likelihood of my > theory that there may have been an AT&T operated switch acting as part > of the LEC's network, perhaps acting as the access tandem. If AT&T did offer such a 'switched' service, is it in fact, dedicated service to the customer's site using switched facilities??? Yes, it is. But, there are no tariffs for such an *OUTBOUND* service, at least here in California. I perceive 'switched' service as a service providing access to the Telephone Network using the Local carrier's switches, as opposed to a dedicated line which would run through the local carrier's switch (or at least, patch-bay), but dial-tone would provided by the L.D. carrier. Now, if the 'switched' service was offered to a potential customer, I.E.: dial-tone provided by the local telco, then the local telco *cannot* prevent equal access unless requested by the customer. But what if AT&T actually rented the local loop, then re-sold it to the customer, thereby becoming the 'customer' of the line in question??? Yes, then the above theory would be reality, but AT&T would not be using their 'equipment' for the local loop, just renting it from the local telco. But again, this type of tariff does not exisit in California for outbound customers. Remember, AT&T cannot 'use' their switches to provide 'local' dial-tone or tandem switching to the LEC, this would be in violation of seperation of church and state....errr.... the Baby Bells from Ma Bell. But it DOES exist for inbound services, notably 800 services. The major L.D. carriers do indeed offer three types of 800 services: 1) Dedicated. Line runs directly to your location. Does not pass Go, does not collect $200. 2) Switched. Calls come in via a POTS number, but POTS number is rented by, and serviced by the 800 carrier itself. The POTS number has no outgoing dial-tone, and no published number. 3) Customer Provided. Customer Provides POTS number. 800 carrier simply routes 800 calls to that POTS number. So, 'Outgoing Switched' is different than 'Incoming Switched' services. Why this is, I have no idea. That is a very good point that maybe somebody else can comment on....??? > Lest I get corrected yet again: Of course one accesses international > networks via an IEC's switched network,......... I don't understand this one. I think I lost the meaning of this line. >........Also, one can > sometimes connect through one network into a gateway into another > network. I guess this is what PBX access ports could be viewed as > doing for private networks. This is a *very* sensitive issue for all the carriers, as they do not like these 'leaky' PBX's, since the private companies are not 'tariffed' to provide long distance calls, which is essentially what happens when an employee uses their PBX for that purpose (of being a 'gateway'). In Other Words: the LEC/IEC's lose revenue. > Regarding Gutierrez' other comment on my comment that separate direct > trunks to two different carriers would be overkill: I agree that it > might well be a good idea to split the traffic between two carriers at > the point of presence (POP), but the larger threat is probably a cable > cut between the customer premises and the POP........... That is true, of course, but how often does that happen as opposed to Your Friend And Mine: The Backhoe chomping away at a 810 megabit fiber line at some highway construction site. > To guard against that would require diverse routing of the cables, > probably to the extent of running them out different sides of the > building......... I am not saying this is for everybody. It's like saying that I should have a cluster of 10 Sun Sparcstations at home just in case....I have no need for such overkill, but you original article quoted 'corporate' telcom managers. In a corporate world, it would NOT be overkill since it would no doubt be vital to maintain communcation outside their business. And in a corporate world, they (should) have the technicial expertise and the equipment to set up such diverse routing in their switches. > This is only my humble opinion. It hasn't been reviewed, approved, or > billed for. Same here. Ja ne. Robert Gutierrez/NASA Ames Research Center/NSI Operations. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) Date: 26 Jan 90 12:33:11 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon David Lewis writes: > > (Incidentally, information > > systems technicians claim that, generally speaking, LESS, not more, > > technology is required to transmit data via telephone circuits than is > > required for voice transmission. > The phrase "... generally speaking, less technology is required to > transmit data via telephone circuits..." is sufficiently vague and > nebulous as to be semantically null... The relevent factors are what > are the traffic engineering impacts of data traffic versus voice > traffic. [...] > While a single call carrying data traffic with a 1-hour holding time > is admittedly the same as a single call carrying voice traffic with a > 1-hour holding time, the hypothesis is that the presence of a > significantly different class of traffic can require re-engineering of > the network to handle the additional service demands which would not > otherwise exist. Therefore, there is effectively a new class of > service which should support the cost of this re-engineering. Talk about vague and nebulous. So a call carrying date is the same as a call carrying voice traffic but it isn't? What is a "significantly different class of traffic"? How is it different? And where do you get this 1-hour holding time? If my computer carried on a one hour conversation with another (at PEP rates--9600+ bps), I would suspect that someone had mistakenly sent _War and Peace_ or some such. Try one or two minutes unless news is being fed and then it is something like ten minutes MAXIMUM holding time. And that's usually between 00:00 and 06:00, hardly a time of stress for the telco. Also, the fact that call completion rates are higher is a plus for the telcos. While call attempts are not billed, completed calls are and if the percentage of completions is higher for modem calls, then revenue production will be greater for a given amount of facility usage. And while you or I will continually try a busy number (using facilities, of course), a computer will try once or twice and then wait some amount of time before the next attempt. (In the case of HDB, the communications software that a lot of us use, those attempts get further and further apart until the number is tried only once a day.) > So attempts to bill differently are really (in my > view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic > "must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic. So why, in the absence of demonstrable need, have the telcos, the FCC, and congresscritters jumped on this "modem surcharge" bandwagon? I'll answer that question. It has been my observation that proposed (and enacted) charges by telcos rarely have any basis in reality. They are a means of protecting the rate base. One of the best examples is the charge for Touch Tone. As has been pointed out, TT subscribers actually put less of a load on switching facilities by holding input registers for less time. So those who pay for TT not only subsidize the rotary customers with money but tax the equipment less. If this were truly a cost-sensitive issue, rotary customers would pay more. But what have some telcos done? They have *raised* TT charges. Makes sense to me. > The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind > the times. I agree. And one would think that if the telcos managed to get through all that old fashioned interactive traffic without surcharges (being content to just bill the calls at regular rates) that this matter could be put to bed at long last. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I think the 'one hour holding time' could be explained thus: many of us sit on line to do our work. For example, I am connected to a local dialup here for two hours each day minimum while working on the Digest. And what of the numerous people who spend their entire lives on Compuserve CB (or it would seem like it! :) )... Data is data is data.....and there are far more casual BBS users and modem chatters out there than you realize, staying on line for an hour or more at a time. What I can communicate vocally in fifteen seconds takes a minute or more of interactive chat to type, transmit and read does it not? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 07:11:03 PST From: "Jeremy Barker, DEC, Reading, UK" Subject: Re: London Split Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > Yes, it has previously been written in the Digest that some > people wonder why it will be this: > 071 inner London > 081 outer London > instead of this: > 01 inner London (i.e. no change) > 071 or 081 outer London > I did visit England recently. The only guess I could make would > possibly be standardization of number lengths. But I wonder how > Gatwick (noticed numbers of varying lengths on pay phones at that > airport) would fit into such a scheme. (Gatwick city code is 0293.) This interpretation is correct. There is a medium term plan to move all numbers to being the same length (in preparation for a much bigger change to all numbers in the late 1990s). Larger cities have area codes (what you may think of as "city code", BT now calls "area codes") of 0N1 and other places 0NYX, where Y is not 1 (in both cases the leading zero is omitted for international calls). The numbers in 0N1 areas are 7-digit and all others will become 6-digit. Right now there are still a lot of 3, 4 and 5-digit numbers. One nasty thing about the changes in London (compared with similar changes in the US) is that there is *NO* period where either number can be dialled and the call completed. After the change people dialling an 01 (or +44 1) number will get a recording with the correct code (071 or 081) and will have to call again. The plan is that this will be continued until the number of calls to 01 is very small. No duplicated exchange numbers will be used until about 1992/3, and they will be "carefully chosen" according to a BT publication I have. Jeremy Barker barker@janus.enet.dec.com or Digital Equipment Company barker@stoat.enet.dec.com Reading, UK voice: +44 734 853614 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #57 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 28 13:51:40 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA09019; Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:51:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25758; 28 Jan 90 12:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20124; 28 Jan 90 11:10 CST Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:56:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #58 Message-Id: <9001281056.ab01118@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:55:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New ISDN Technology (Anybody Using It?) Comments (Barton A. Fisk) Re: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME (Vance Shipley) New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday (Robert Gutierrez) Re: The AT&T Problem (Tad Cook) Re: COCOT Carrier Access (Carl Moore) Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (tanner@ki4pv.uucp) Re: Sprint Stuff (John G. De Armond) Novel New 900 Number In Use (Louis A. Mamakos) Special Issues Will Follow (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton A. Fisk" Subject: New ISDN Technology (Anybody Using It?) Comments? Date: 25 Jan 90 17:08:32 GMT Organization: Barton A. Fisk & Co. Is anybody using the new ISDN technology for connecting computers/lans? Would you give us your comments and experiences? Is anyone using the ISDN telephones? Comments? If you would like to email I'll summarize. Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton PO Box 1781 | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: barton@holston.UUCP Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ---------------------------------------- 318-439-5984 | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Sat, 27 Jan 90 17:54:30 GMT In article <3213@accuvax.nwu.edu> Alfredo Villalobos writes: >We are looking for ISDN (Primary and basic rate) and V.35 (64 kb/s) >boards for buses AT and VME. Drivers for UNIX Sys V Rel 3.2 and UNIX >BSD 4.3 are of interest too. I have a brochure from a company called "Meridian Networx" who have ISDN boards for PC's, unix drivers and other stuff. They seem to be getting the stuff from France, a company called "SCII". Company info as listed: Meridian Networx 14044 Ventura Blvd. suite #303 Sherman Oakes, CA 91423 tel(818)501-7410 fax(818)907-6110 I had trouble parsing this one so here's how it appears exactly: SCII Europe 11, BIS RUE DE PRESBOURG, 75116 PARIS, FRANCE/TEL (331)45 00 45 40 FAX (331) 45 00 85 84 _______ Disclaimer _______ I have no connection with these people nor have I used their products; I only have a brochure! Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.UUCP SwitchView - Linton Technology ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances (519)746-4460 ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday Date: 26 Jan 90 17:30:57 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC (X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 41, message 4 of 9) > > Now, what can we do about this GTE GTD-5 central office I am in that > > falls on its face twice a year...Thank goodness I have FX lines and > > cellphones or we'd be off the map. Frankly, local CO's are fast > > becoming the weak link in telecom...I've had several major CO failures > > in the area this past year, not to mention cable cuts... > Funny you mention that. The EAX1 in Los Gatos went down AGAIN the > other day (Wed, I think)............ You DO know that a GTD-5 is scheduled to go online in the Los Gatos C.O. TOMORROW?!? (1/27). The letter was sent to the customers on 1/5 by a Bill McNeer, District Manager: "The new GTD-5 switching unit will use the most advanced digital technology to complete a greater volume of telephone calls at a faster speed and more accurately than before." Aside from the terrible sentence structure, is he trying to say that customers won't experience more than 1 crash per day, as opposed to 3-4 crashes per day???? :-( I got the letter from one of my co-workers, who is a victim....errr.... customer of GTE-Los Gatos. Los Gatos is a small town almost next to San Jose, California, for those of you reading this outside the Bay Area. > I can't recall a Pac*Bell CO failure (other than quake overload) in > the rememberable past, not even my CO. I have been told by parties who > would like to remain anonymous that one of the reasons that Los Gatos > GTE is so unreliable is that there are no on-site people who really > know anything about the equipment. It is a GTE "outpost" and when they > experience trouble, someone has to come up from Santa Monica or > Thousand Jokes. But you have to remember that Pac*Hell....errr...Pac*Bell replaced their switchpersons....uhhh....I mean, their switches with 5ESS's or DMS-100's which they can monitor and fix from their San Ramon Network Management Center, all automated. And you wonder why they're getting rid of (what was it.....???) around 14,000 employees??? Robert Gutierrez. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem Date: 27 Jan 90 20:18:12 GMT Organization: very little Someone posted a long and interesting saga about frustrations of trying to get a list of LD carriers from C&P Telco that served a particular C.O. After my local switch converted to equal access, I had no trouble at all getting this info from US West. The customer service person sent me a photocopy of a list of all carriers serving my C.O., and it included the 10XXX codes. Some of them were pretty obscure, like "Long Distance Savers of Redmond". I think the list even included phone numbers for each carrier. The list was copied from a computer prinout that didn't look like anything that would normally be distributed to the public. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP MCI Mail: 328-8544 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 15:34:28 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: COCOT Carrier Access Oh, where do you complain if you can't use 10xxx from a COCOT? You write of that problem occurring at a Standard station in Kingman, Arizona, and I recently ran across that at at restaurant near Mount Vernon, Va., with no identification available as to whose payphone it was. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 01:39:48 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret ) You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible ) exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving ) over the BOC rates. Would that it were! No, here in God's Own Country, you can TRY to dial intra-LATA calls via 10xxx. Depending on the phase of the moon, you get either an intercept message or a fast busy. It's a shame, too, because the AT&T rates for short distances are a bit lower. Compare Sou Bell: Daytona is ~30 miles away, 20/12; New Smyrna is about 25 miles away, 30/20. Costs in pennies for first/next minutes. Don't get the idea that AT&T rates are all comprehensible, though. I find that Florida is not part of "America" as in "Reach Out &". If you want to call AT&T-reacable places in Florida, you have to subscribe for an initial hour/month of Florida service. That initial hour costs more than the hour to "America". The incremental time after the first hour is also more expensive in Florida than America. (Not being impressed at having left America, I threw the Florida business back to someone else. No flames please from Canada or Mexico over term "America".) ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra attctc bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 28 Jan 90 09:56:22 GMT Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) >The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in >my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call >saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that >they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing >that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one >digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have >access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are >sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens" >for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T >for this?) The reason for this is simple. All visa/MC/Amex type and the phone company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a published standard of checksuming the digits of the card. The last digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits algorithm. This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but I don't have the specifics handy. One of 2 things has happened. Either Pac*Bell has changed to a standard algorithm or they've published the one they use so the AOS's can verify. I suspect the later. For the AOS's I'm familiar with, the algorithmic check is ALL they do. They don't subscribe to or use a credit database. Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs. We already know that the last digit is computed. On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN starts with a "2". (Please don't clog the group here telling me that yours is different. I make my statement based on some pretty reliable statistics we collected when I was working with an AOS.) This leaves only 2 numbers to "guess" if you are trying to figure out a PIN. This is something you might want to keep in mind as you review your phone charges. John De Armond, WD4OQC | The Fano Factor - Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Where Theory meets Reality. emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | ------------------------------ Subject: Novel New 900 Number In Use Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 18:24:30 EST From: "Louis A. Mamakos" I saw this in a glossy that I picked up at USENIX. Finally, a non sleaze 900 number! Anonymous Access to UUNET's Source Archives 1 900 GOT SRCS UUNET now provides access to its extensive collection of UNIX related sources to non-subscribers. By calling 1-900-468-7727 and using the login "uucp" with no password, anyone may uucp any of UUNET's on line source collection. Callers will be charged 40 cents per minute. The charges will appear on their next telephone bill. The file uunet!~ls-lR.Z contains a complete list of the files available. uunet!~ls-lRt.Z contains the same list, but sorted by modification time. These files are updated daily. Files ending in .Z, such as these, are {\it compressed} to save transfer time. These must be uncompressed before used. The file uunet!~/compress.tar is a tar archive containing the C sources for the uncompress program. This service provides a cost effective way of obtaining current releases of sources without having to maintain accounts with UUNET or some other service. All modes connected to the 900 number are Telebit T2500 modems. These modems support all standard modem speeds including PEP, V.32 (9600), V.22bis (2400), Bell 212a (1200), and Bell 103 (300). Using PEP or V.32, a 1.5 megabyte file such as the GNU C compiler would cost $10 in connect charges. The entire 55 megabyte X Window system V11 R4 would cost only $370 in connect time. These costs are less than the official tape distribution fees and the are available {\bf now} via modem. UUNET Communications Service 3110 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 570 Falls Church, VA 22042 +1 703 876 5050 (voice) +1 703 876 5059 (fax) info@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:27:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues Will Follow Throughout the day Sunday several special issues of the Digest will follow. A two-part (because of its size) special will include a complete list of all telephone companies in the United States. Another special will be a rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore on my 'Net Friends' reply. A fourth special will be some background information on Kevin Poulsen. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #58 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Mon Jan 29 03:00:58 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA08145; Mon, 29 Jan 90 03:00:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00613; 29 Jan 90 1:42 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19268; 29 Jan 90 0:37 CST Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 0:33:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #59 Message-Id: <9001290033.ab14832@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jan 90 00:33:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Don H. Kemp) AT&T Outage (Jeff Wasilko) Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Tad Cook) Re: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 12:24:48 EST From: Don H Kemp Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program. Don ========================================================= Technical background on AT&T's network slowdown, January 15, 1990 * * * At approximately 2:30 p.m. EST on Monday, January 15, one of AT&T's 4ESS toll switching systems in New York City experienced a minor hardware problem which activated normal fault recovery routines within the switch. This required the switch to briefly suspend new call processing until it completed its fault recovery action -- a four-to-six second procedure. Such a suspension is a typical maintenance procedure, and is normally invisible to the calling public. As part of our network management procedures, messages were automatically sent to connecting 4ESS switches requesting that no new calls be sent to this New York switch during this routine recovery interval. The switches receiving this message made a notation in their programs to show that the New York switch was temporarily out of service. When the New York switch in question was ready to resume call processing a few seconds later, it sent out call attempts (known as IAMs - Initial Address Messages) to its connecting switches. When these switches started seeing call attempts from New York, they started making adjustments to their programs to recognize that New York was once again up-and-running, and therefore able to receive new calls. A processor in the 4ESS switch which links that switch to the CCS7 network holds the status information mentioned above. When this processor (called a Direct Link Node, or DLN) in a connecting switch received the first call attempt (IAM) from the previously out-of-service New York switch, it initiated a process to update its status map. As the result of a software flaw, this DLN processor was left vulnerable to disruption for several seconds. During this vulnerable time, the receipt of two call attempts from the New York switch -- within an interval of 1/100th of a second -- caused some data to become damaged. The DLN processor was then taken out of service to be reinitialized. Since the DLN processor is duplicated, its mate took over the traffic load. However, a second couplet of closely spaced new call messages from the New York 4ESS switch hit the mate processor during the vulnerable period, causing it to be removed from service and temporarily isolating the switch from the CCS7 signaling network. The effect cascaded through the network as DLN processors in other switches similarly went out of service. The unstable condition continued because of the random nature of the failures and the constant pressure of the traffic load in the network providing the call-message triggers. The software flaw was inadvertently introduced into all the 4ESS switches in the AT&T network as part of a mid-December software update. This update was intended to significantly improve the network's performance by making it possible for switching systems to access a backup signaling network more quickly in case of problems with the main CCS7 signaling network. While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of events that led to this problem couldn't be predicted. To troubleshoot the problem, AT&T engineers first tried an array of standard procedures to reestablish the integrity of the signaling network. In the past, these have been more than adequate to regain call processing. In this case, they proved inadequate. So we knew very early on we had a problem we'd never seen before. At the same time, we were looking at the pattern of error messages and trying to understand what they were telling us about this condition. We have a technical support facility that deals with network problems, and they became involved immediately. Bell Labs people in Illinois, Ohio and New Jersey joined in moments later. Since we didn't understand the mechanism we were dealing with, we had to infer what was happening by looking at the signaling messages that were being passed, as well as looking at individual switches. We were able to stabilize the network by temporarily suspending signaling traffic on our backup links, which helped cut the load of messages to the affected DLN processors. At 11:30 p.m. EST on Monday, we had the last link in the network cleared. On Tuesday, we took the faulty program update out of the switches and temporarily switched back to the previous program. We then started examining the faulty program with a fine-toothed comb, found the suspicious software, took it into the laboratory, and were able to reproduce the problem. We have since corrected the flaw, tested the change and restored the backup signaling links. We believe the software design, development and testing processes we use are based on solid, quality foundations. All future releases of software will continue to be rigorously tested. We will use the experience we've gained through this problem to further improve our procedures. It is important to note that Monday's calling volume was not unusual; in fact, it was less than a normal Monday, and the network handled normal loads on previous weekdays. Although nothing can be guaranteed 100% of the time, what happened Monday was a series of events that had never occurred before. With ongoing improvements to our design and delivery processes, we will continue to drive the probability of this type of incident occuring towards zero. # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 15:28:40 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: AT&T Outage I found this is the comp.risks.digest, and haven't seen it here yet, so here it is: >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 14:24:30 PST >From: "Peter G. Neumann" >Subject: Cause of AT&T network failure >From Telephony, Jan 22, 1990 p11: "The fault was in the code" of the new software that AT&T loaded into front-end processors of all 114 of its 4ESS switching systems in mid-December, said Larry Seese, AT&T's director of technology development. In detail: The problem began the afternoon of Jan 15 when a piece of trunk interface equipment developed internal problems for reasons that have yet to be determined. The equipment told the 4ESS switch in New York that it was having problems and couldn't correct the fault. "The recovery code is written so that the processor will run corrective initialization on the equipment. That takes four to six seconds. At the same time, new calls are stopped from coming into the switch." Seese said. The New York switch sent a message to all the other 4ESS switches it is linked with that it was not accepting additional traffic. Seese referred to that message as a "congestion signal." After the switch successfully completed the reintialization, the New York switch went back in service and began processing calls. That is when the fault in the new software reared its ugly head. Under the previous system, switch A would send out a message that it was working again, and swithc B would double-check that switch A was back in service. With the new software, switch A begins processing calls and sends out call routing signals. The reappearance of traffic from switch A is supposed to tell switch B that A is working again. "We made an improvement in the way we react to those messages so we can react more quickly. The first common channel signaling system 7 initial address message (caused by a call attempt) that switch B receives from swithc A alerts B that A is back in service. Switch B then resets its internal logic to indicate that A is back in service," said Seese. The problem occured when switch B got a second call-attempt message from A while it was in the process of resetting its internal logic. "[The message] confused the software. it tried to execute an instruction that didn't make any sense. The software told switch B `My CCS7 processor is insane'", so switch B shut itself down to avoid spreading the problem, Seese explained. Unfortunately, switch B then sent a message to other switches that it was out of service and wasn't accepting additional traffic. Once switch B reset itself and began operating again, it sent out call processing messages via the CCS7 link. That caused identical failures around the nation as other 4ESS switches got second messages from switch B while they were in the process of resetting their internal logic to indicate switch B was working again. "It was a chain reaction. Any switch that was connected to B was put into the same condition." "The event just repeated itself in every [4ESS] switch over and over again. If the switches hadn't gotten a second message while resetting, there would have been no problem. If the messages had been received farther apart, it would not have triggered the problem." AT&T solved the problem by reducing the messaging load of the CCS7 network. That allowed the switches to rest themselves and the network to stabilize. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use Date: 28 Jan 90 20:06:43 GMT Organization: very little In response to a posting about a device that was suppposed to prevent interruptions to modem transmissions, the moderator asked for a piece on this general class of device. These are called exclusion modules. There are a couple of types. The kind that the questioner bought from DAK is probably an unbalanced voltage sensitive type. You put it in series with a phone, and it prevents that phone from interrupting or intruding on any other extension that is already using the line. It senses voltage, and if it sees normal 48 vdc when you go off hook, it lets you in. If it sees less than about 32 vdc, it opens up, and you are excluded. It sits in series with one side of the line. You could take one and put it in series with all of the extensions in the house, with the modem only wired to the telco side, but it may cause a slight imbalance on the line. Another class of exclusion module is the group exclusion. It has an imput side wired to the incoming telco line, and it divides the line into two groups. Whenever a device wired to one side is using the line, the devices wired to the other side are excluded. Some group exclusion modules have a priority side, which means that devices hooked to that side always have access, even when the line is being used by someone on the other side. Graybar, North Supply, and other distributors should be able to get these. One manufacturer who has been making them for 20 years is Proctor & Associates. Here are their part numbers: 41403 Balanced single line exclusion $20.70 41404 Balanced Group Exclusion, 1 side has priority $35.00 41405 Unbalanced single line exclusion $12.50 41434 Like 41405, but modular. All above are hardwired $15.30 oops! That part number above SHOULD BE 41412! 41434 Balanced Modular Group Exclusion, like 41404, but modular, and MUTUALLY exclusive. $59.95 A cheap but messy way around all this is to use the extra jack on your modem marked TELEPHONE. Cut your phone line before it goes to all the extensions, and run the incoming side to the modem. Run a line from the "phone" side of the modem back to the wires feeding all the other jacks in the house. This will preven interruptions, but it also means that the modem CUTS OFF ANYONE USING THE LINE when it goes off hook. Best put an extension phone next to the computer so you can check the line first. Proctor and Associates is at 206-881-7000. Their minimum order requirement is $50.00. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday Date: 28 Jan 90 13:00:38 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Robert Gutierrez > You DO know that a GTD-5 is scheduled to go online in the Los Gatos > C.O. TOMORROW?!? (1/27). No, I didn't. But right you are; I just dialed my 354 phone there and sure enough it is GTD-5. I guess I was asleep at the switch (sorry). > "The new GTD-5 switching unit will use the most advanced digital > technology to complete a greater volume of telephone calls at a > faster speed and more accurately than before." I remember when the EAX when in some years ago. They used almost the same wording on the letter then. They went to great length to tell subscribers how much more advanced the equipment was than any other in the area. I guess they were talking about the directorized SXS that they still had on 356 at the time. LG customers should be thrilled; they can finally get three-way calling. > But you have to remember that Pac*Hell....errr...Pac*Bell replaced > their switchpersons....uhhh....I mean, their switches with 5ESS's or > DMS-100's which they can monitor and fix from their San Ramon Network > Management Center, all automated. And you wonder why they're getting > rid of (what was it.....???) around 14,000 employees??? Not in my CO they haven't. It is still #5 crossbar. How do you suppose they will remote that to San Ramon :-) I drive past my CO whenever I make a left turn out of my driveway, and it is oh, so comforting to see the batallion of cars parked in the lot. I can just imagine how much spray solvent is being consumed in there! Not to mention CONTAC cleaner. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #59 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Mon Jan 29 04:05:13 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA10318; Mon, 29 Jan 90 04:05:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07974; 29 Jan 90 2:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00613; 29 Jan 90 1:42 CST Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:20:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #60 Message-Id: <9001290120.ab25719@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jan 90 01:20:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Telecom Archives Index (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Gregory G. Woodbury) Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Tad Cook) Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Tad Cook) From the Archives: The Day TAT-8 Went Into Service (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 17:30:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telecom Archives Index It occurred to me today that many readers have seen frequent mentions here of the Telecom Archives, but because they are not on an Internet site, they have no way of reviewing/retrieving material from that repository of back issues and other articles. Having never seen it, they can't really begin to imagine how large it is, and the amount and type of files stored. Below is a picture of the directory for the archives as of today (it changes daily, of course), and I submit it with an invitation to use it regularly. If you *can* use it, you probably know *how* to use it: 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' then login anonymous; use your name@site.domain for a password, 'cd telecom-archives' and make your picks. total 15236 drwxrwxr-x 3 telecom 2560 Jan 28 18:13 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root 512 Jan 9 13:32 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 718 Jan 27 17:33 1981.Intro.to.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 94485 Jan 14 22:32 1981.vol1.iss004-020 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 33063 Jan 20 19:29 1982.vol2.iss001-003 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 382277 Jan 14 22:09 1982.vol2.iss089-141 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 191518 Jan 20 17:59 1983.vol3.iss001-021 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 63880 Jan 14 22:53 1983.vol3.iss083-095 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 16811 Jan 15 01:08 1984.vol4.iss001-002 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 121389 Jan 15 01:04 1984.vol4.iss076-093 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 180604 Jan 20 18:29 1985.vol4.iss155-184 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 658 Jan 27 17:23 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 623292 Jan 27 17:08 1985.vol5.iss001-076 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 861286 Jan 27 18:05 1986.vol5.iss077-161 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 639112 Jan 26 03:07 1987.vol6.most.issues -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 274580 Jan 20 16:09 1987.vol7.complete.set -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 21596 Jan 20 16:06 1987.vol8.iss003-004 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 137265 Jan 20 15:36 1988.vol8.iss070-083 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 724832 Aug 1 20:53 1988.vol8.iss140-189 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 227589 Aug 1 20:53 1988.vol8.iss190-213 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 577173 Jan 15 00:01 1989.vol9.iss001-049 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 564262 Jan 14 23:28 1989.vol9.iss050-100 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 653097 Jan 14 21:32 1989.vol9.iss101-150 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 637611 Jan 15 00:24 1989.vol9.iss151-200 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 744800 Jan 14 21:33 1989.vol9.iss201-250 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 787166 Jan 14 21:35 1989.vol9.iss251-300 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 805328 Jan 14 21:54 1989.vol9.iss301-350 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 780366 Jan 15 00:08 1989.vol9.iss351-400 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 784366 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss401-450 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 758330 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss451-500 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 794183 Jan 14 16:44 1989.vol9.iss501-550 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 856691 Jan 14 16:48 1989.vol9.iss551-603 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 861272 Jan 28 18:03 1990.vol10.iss001-050 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 0 Jan 28 18:13 INDEX -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 968 Jan 20 20:39 READ.ME.FIRST -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 8147 Aug 1 21:00 areacode.program.in.c -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 18937 Aug 1 21:00 auto.coin.collection -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 15141 Aug 1 21:00 cellular.sieve -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 23944 Aug 1 21:00 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 9151 Aug 1 21:00 country.code.list -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 39319 Aug 1 21:00 docket.87-215 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 3422 Jan 20 19:52 early.digital.ESS -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 62602 Aug 1 21:00 ecpa.1986 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 8504 Jan 27 18:47 enterprise-funny-numbers -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 33239 Aug 1 21:00 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 19378 Aug 1 21:00 fcc.threat -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 484 Jan 14 17:02 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 9052 Aug 1 21:00 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 47203 Aug 1 21:00 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 1998 Jan 27 18:25 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 377 Jan 27 18:40 fires.elsewhere.in.past -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 1280 Jan 14 17:33 first.issue.cover -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 8397 Jan 14 16:57 glossary.acronyms -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 67113 Jan 14 16:56 glossary.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 32645 Aug 1 21:00 guide.to.areacodes -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 2337 Jan 27 19:00 history.of.digest -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 43365 Jan 28 17:59 kevin.poulsen.comp.crimes -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 4816 Aug 1 21:00 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 801 Aug 1 21:00 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 2271 Aug 1 21:00 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 13675 Aug 1 21:00 ldrates.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 12260 Jan 20 00:43 london.ac.script -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 15604 Aug 1 21:00 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 463 Aug 1 21:00 measured-service -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 36641 Aug 1 21:00 mnp.protocol -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 2450 Jan 20 19:47 modems.and.call-waiting -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 11197 Aug 1 21:00 named.exchanges -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 3014 Jan 27 18:56 newuser.letter -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 9886 Jan 23 23:37 occ.10xxx.access.codes -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 8350 Jan 28 10:57 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 8504 Jan 27 18:43 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 2756 Jan 27 18:52 old.hello.msg drwxrwxr-x 2 jsol 1024 Jan 27 17:50 oldarc -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 70153 Aug 1 21:01 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 5492 Aug 1 21:01 pearl.harbor.phones -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 42188 Jan 14 16:58 phrack.acronyms -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 38772 Aug 1 21:01 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 17950 Jan 14 16:51 rotenberg.privacy.speech -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 9764 Jan 20 19:50 starline.features -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 46738 Jan 18 22:29 starlink.vrs.pcp -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 3857 Aug 1 21:01 tat-8.fiber.optic -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 31487 Jan 28 18:11 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-rw- 1 ptownson 127125 Jan 28 17:03 telecom-recent -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 11752 Aug 1 21:01 telstar.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 298 Aug 1 21:01 west.german.cellular -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 37947 Aug 1 21:01 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom 4101 Aug 1 21:01 wiring.diagram -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson 24541 Aug 1 21:01 zum.debate Enjoy! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....) Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 00:12:00 GMT In article Telecom v10i55m3/9 (David Lewis) writes: >The hypothesis that any "data surcharge" using traffic engineering >theory is based on is that calls carrying data traffic have >statistically significantly different traffic engineering >characteristics than do calls carrying voice traffic. : : >There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. FIrst of all, >there have been very few attempts to experimentally verify it. The >data really aren't there to confirm or deny whether data traffic >exists as a statistically significantly different class of traffic >from voice traffic. So attempts to bill differently are really (in my >view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic >"must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic. >The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind >the times. The characteristics of data traffic are changing as the >characteristics of computing change. While ten years ago it may have >been true that the vast majority of calls carrying data traffic were >long holding time interactive terminal sessions, the trend is to more >and more true "distributed systems" where the data communication tends >to be more high-speed, off-peak bulk transfers. A whole bunch of >five-minute data calls between 1 and 4 AM, face it, aren't going to >impose an unmanageable load on the PSTN... I have good reason to believe that some of the telcos (and especially Bell Labs) do have some good statistical data on the parameters of data calling. At the Holmdel and Piscataway labs (pre-divestiture) and (I think) at Murray Hill, they had Dimension PBX's for all the internal traffic. They also knew which lines were dedicated to voice and which lines were pure data and which lines were used for both. The RMATS (Remote Maintenance, Administration and Traffic System) for Dimension and Horizon PBX's had the ability to group the information gathered in several different ways and one of the flags in the database indicated the expected usage (voice,data,both and other) of the line. The RMATS development group (at Holmdel) collected the statistics from the Holmdel PBX's over a few years (around 1981) and played with it. I don't recall if they ever released any of the analyses but I would guess that the data is still available internally if someone wanted it. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of the relevant statistics, I was busy doing System Admin and Testing and only noticed the other activities of the project subliminally. About 1981 was an interesting time at the Labs. One of the sites at Holmdel (vax136) was a major netnews node with connections all over the country and the lab. For internal connectivity the lab didn't like running extra cables and encouraged/required the use of dial-up connections as much as possible. Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail Date: 28 Jan 90 20:22:07 GMT Organization: very little Darn it, there IS a way to get to MCI Mail addresses from USENET, and vice-versa, but I LOST the article from PC WEEK on how to do it! Anyone having the info, please post. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: To get *to* MCI Mail from the internet, your mail can be addressed like this: I am writing to box 123-4567 so the internet address would be 0001234567@mcimail.com. In other words, add three zeros to the left, drop out the dash, and add @mcimail.com. Simplicity itself! Now from MCI back to here is a bit more of a task, but full documentation is on line at MCI Mail. PT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! Date: 28 Jan 90 20:33:18 GMT Organization: very little One thing caught my attention on the posting about ONA access charges (modem tax). It looks like this is an attempt to end an EXEMPTION for networks like MCI Mail, Tymnet, etc, rather than impose a new tax that the voice networks don't pay. Am I confused on this? Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: You are only confused in the sense that, according to Fred Goldstein, the whole matter has been mooted out by the change of personnel at the FCC, and the attitude of some congress-creatures right now. Yes, there was a 'second time around', as per messages in the Digest last week, and it was worded differently but would have accomplished much the same thing. But the whole thing is dead now, we are told. If it is dead, I wonder why they (FCC) don't actually close the docket, which is still open....maybe they are waiting quietly until next year. Eternal vigilance is required, if you ask me. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:06:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: From the Archives: The Day TAT-8 Went Into Service The item which follows originally appeared thirteen months ago in the Digest, and if you've made any international calls lately, you've probably used this gem: (Also appears in Telecom Digest V8 issue 202 12/16/88) FIRST LASER PHONE CALL ZIPS ACROSS THE ATLANTIC! ISAAC ASIMOV DEDICATES TAT-8; MAKES FIRST CALL ------------------------------------------------ A shark-proof undersea cable began carrying laser beam phone calls across the Atlantic Ocean Wednesday as the first leg of a network designed to revolutionize service on three continents. AT&T, British Telecom and France Telecom, the three principal owners of the cable asked well known author Isaac Asimov to dedicate the new cable and place the first call. In his remarks, Asimov said, "Welcome everyone to this historic trans-Atlantic crossing -- this maiden voyage across the sea on a beam of light..." He noted, "...our world has grown small, and this cable, which can carry 40,000 calls at one time is a sign of the voracious demand for communications today.......the clarity is in striking contrast to the crackling first telephone message from Alex Bell to his assistant Thomas A. Watson 113 years ago..." Mr. Asimov was the first speaker of several in a video conference in New York that was transmitted to Paris and London by the new cable. The fiber-optic cable, which is thinner than a child's wrist, is able to handle double the capacity of all the trans-Atlantic copper-cable predecessors combined. It took seven years to design, build and install. The total cost was $361 million, but the people involved insist that in the long run, it will mean a continued decline in the price of overseas phone calls. Ordinary television broadcasts will continue to be carried by satellite because they would take up too much room on TAT-8. But the cable will be used for video conferences on a regular basis between the United States and Europe, using a method to compress the signals and take up very little bandwidth. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, which will operate TAT-8, said 1988 is the first year it will handle more than one billion international calls. Commenting on Asimov's remarks of '...a voracious demand for communications..' an AT&T spokesperson noted that even this new cable will start running out of room late in 1991. The fourth quarter, 1991 is when a new fiber-optic cable with nearly double the new cable's capacity is scheduled to begin operation. Fiber-optic service to Japan and the far east will start in the second quarter of 1989 under the name PTAT, and fiber-optic links to the Caribbean and the Mediterranean will open in 1991 or 1992. Lasers have revolutionized phone networks by making it possible to transmit information in the form of rapid pulsesof laser light through hair thin strands of glass. The lasers transmit information in digital form coded into a series of ones and zeros. Most long distance calls within the United States are already carried on optic fibers. Ownership of TAT-8 is as follows -- American Telephone and Telegraph, 34 percent British Telecommunications , 15.5 percent France Telecom , 10 percent The remaining 40.5 percent is divided among 26 partners, some of whom own up to two percent interest; while others own less than one percent interest. The principal partners are -- Sprint Communications, MCI, Western Union and Northern Telecom. Will overseas telephone rates go down in the next few years? AT&T says they will. The exact amount is anyone's guess, but a spokesperson from AT&T said "....I think within a few years the rates will be *less than half* of what they are now..." Wednesday, December 14, 1988: An historic day in telecommunications history, and one I believe is only third to the invention of the telephone itself; the second most historic occassion being the completion of the cable which connected the east and west coasts of the United States in the early 1920's. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #60 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Jan 30 03:19:15 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA04976; Tue, 30 Jan 90 03:19:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08011; 30 Jan 90 1:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05575; 30 Jan 90 0:51 CST Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 0:46:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #61 Message-Id: <9001300046.ab07417@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: R TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jan 90 00:45:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson London Phone Network Jammed (Kevin Hopkins) Another Free the BOCs Bill? (William Degnan) Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (W. L. Ware) 12.928 Mb/s Transmission (Stephen Fleming) 56/64kb Link to Norway Trouble (Jason Venner) AT&T Voicemail Service (Ken Jongsma) Them Wrong Numbers (John Boteler) "Sleaze" (Robert M. Hamer) Honolulu Phone Number in 1961 (Carl Moore) Phone Credit Cards (Mark Earle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: London Phone Network Jammed Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 09:36:29 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins The London (UK) phone network was reported to have jammed yesterday afternoon, Thursday 25.01.90, due a 100% increase in traffic. A storm hit the South, South West and Midlands of England and the South of Wales during Thursday with winds of 60mph to 80mph, gusting to 100mph. Over 40 people were killed by the storm. The increase in telephone traffic can most likely be attributed to people checking that relatives were OK in the storm stricken areas. No trunk lines were available out of London at one time during the afternoon, but the rest of the UK's phone network survived. Some parts of the country might still be without phone service today but that will only be because of some overhead lines in rural districts still being down after being hit by the storm. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 14:51:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Another Free the BOCs Bill? I have read that Sen. Ernest Holllings, D-S.C., has introduced a bill to remove MFJ bans on the BOCs to permit them to "conduct research on, design, develop, manufacture and market telecommunications equipment." Is anyone familiar with this? Does anybody know the specifics? And, does anybody have the text of the MFJ available in some electronic form? 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: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 27 Jan 90 22:50:23 GMT Reply-To: W.L. Ware Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that? 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: You bet! Listed numbers are the default, and the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he can't find it to give out either. Charges for non-pub service are part of tariffs in every state. PT] ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@uunet.uu.net Subject: 12.928 Mb/s Transmission Date: Mon, 29-Jan-90 07:48:10 PST In several government documents lately, I have seen reference to a digital bit rate of 12.928 Mb/s -- is anyone familiar with this? It's a little more than two DS-2s ... maybe someone invented DS-2C while I wasn't looking? If anyone has more information or a relevant reference, I'd be most grateful. Thanks very much. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | Voice: (703) 847-8186 | | Northern Telecom +-------------------------------------| | Eastern Region / Federal Ntwks | Opinions expressed do not | | McLean, Virginia 22102-4203 | represent Northern Telecom. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: "Jason Venner;;;4155252989;ZU34" Subject: 56/64kb Link to Norway Trouble Organization: To Secret To Say Date: 29 Jan 90 08:52:16 I ordered a 56kb dds to Norway from AT&T in October, for turn on Jan. 1. Well, it didn't happen, and may not happen till March or later. I still need a circuit. Any suggestions on how to get one ASAP? I can spend up to 10K per month on the thing. I need it to work int cicsco routers with V.35 interfaces. I have or can get 56kb modems. Jason ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: AT&T Voicemail Service Date: Mon, 29-Jan-90 16:28:33 PST From this weeks' Communications Week: AT&T last week pulled the wraps off a voice messaging service that lets callers, through a specific toll-free number, record and send messages worldwide. Called AT&T Voicemark Messaging Service, this latest offering made its marketing debut in the Atlanta area. Callers there would dial 800-562-6275 and follow the prompts to send messages to recipients. Now any caller can use the service, but only those in Atlanta can pay for it using an AT&T calling card. Voicemark Messaging Service users can charge their calls to their calling cards or to a credit card, said an AT&T spokesman. ...for the time being, the credit card option is the only one available to the public. After dialing... and providing information for payment, callers can record a one minute message, which they can send immediately or schedule to be sent within one week. The caller can also request the recipient to reply, at no cost. If a reply is requested, the caller would need to check with the service. ...delivery options... come in two forms. Priced at $1.75 per call, the automated version will attempt to send the message for up to two hours. With the person to person option, which is priced at $2.50, an AT&T operator will try to contact the intended recipient for up to 4 hours... If the calls go unanswered, the caller will not be billed. Callers can access the system for a status check. Prices on international calls vary by country. (End of Article) I think this is a great service. I can think of many times where it would be useful. The delay option on international calls is perfect for time zone mismatches. Pricing actually sounds reasonable, though it seems funny that they would offer an operator assisted service. Thought AT&T was trying to reduce live operators. A lot of questions were not answered in the article. Primarily relating to how AT&T plans on handling security for the status calls and replies. Unfortunately, the 800 number given was not working from Western Michigan as of tonight, so I wasn't able to try it out. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: Are they calling this 'voicemail'? Actually, a more appropriate name would be 'store and forward'; a service offering Illinois Bell has thought about a couple times but gone nowhere with. The lady at Voicemark I spoke to this evening said only Southern Bell and South Central Bell Calling Cards could be used (of course, those are AT&T cards as well.) Another number to call for information and literature between 7 AM and 11 PM daily is 1-800-662-2588. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Them Wrong Numbers Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 5:46:38 EST From: John Boteler John Higdon writes in <3210@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >Pac*Bell has just graciously changed my 800 number at no charge... >My old number was 800 445-8886. The two top wrong number attempts by >the dweebs out there were 800 445-8667 (Hilton) and 800 445-8880 (Red >and White Fleet). For the life of me, I can't understand how I got >those Hilton calls. You not only overestimated the intelligence of the dialing public, you also overestimated the quality of today's telecomm gear. Guess what happens if I pres the '8' button one time on a Touch-Tone pad with bouncy keys? That's right, I get more than one '8'. Add the '6' at the end and you answer, of all folks. With the less than mediocre equipment available at low, low prices today, it is a wonder you didn't receive more of the same! John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 10:44 EST From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" Subject: "Sleaze" carols@world.std.com Carol Springs writes: >Excuse, please, I'm new to this Digest and have deliberately avoided >trying the standard jargon lest I misuse it. But I'm curious about >John's use of the term "sleaze" here. I'm moderately familiar with and the moderator noted: >programming on many, perhaps most 900/976 numbers. Casual billing is >not a sleazy tactic; actually it is a great service, and allows >flexibility in the use of 'casual' (or non-one-plus) long distance >carriers. But the practice some AOS' use of making a 'test call' over Actually, I don't want my Sprint Foncard number to be used by anyone else but Sprint, not ATT, not some AOS, etc. When I got a Sprint card it was because I decided Sprint was the LD service I wanted to use. I don't want some hotel (I travel a lot) to intercept my call to 800-etc-etc, connect me with the LD service of their choice, and bill me some outrageous amount via my Sprint Foncard number. Similarly, as hard as I find this to grasp, most Americans (I don't mean to single out my own countrypersons; I suspect the same would hold the world over) can't seen to use anything but the simplest dialing procedures. The idea of dialing 10xxx seems too difficult. My wife, a business executive, whose IQ I have never measured, but which I would predict confidently is above average, and who uses a variety of computer systems, and runs a small division of a major pharmaceutical company, seems to have decided without deciding that anything other than 1+ dialing (or dialing via some other method IF I POST INSTRUCTIONS NEXT TO THE PHONE) is just too complicated. And you can forget my teenage kids. My daughter has one of those ATT "Call Home" or "Call me" or "Call whatever" cards, that should allow her to call only our home phone number. However, when she forgets to carry it around with her, she is stuck (or we are if it is sufficiently urgent that we accept the collect call) because she can't seem to memorize the number from the card... I don't want her or anyone using the number on the "Call me/home/whatever" card via some other LD company to call some other number, and have it show up on my bill. As another thread, I just (well, recently) moved from Chesterfield county, VA, to Richmond, VA (from the suburbs to the city), and noticed that all other charges aside, the TAX on my phone bill increased drastically. Upon investigation, I discovered that Chesterfield county, where I used to live, had a local phone tax of a couple of percent, up to a maximum of $2.00. The city of Richmond seems to have a local tax of 25 percent! And that is on top of a .22 "911 tax." And on top of that they stick a 9 percent tax surcharge, making my total local tax about 34 percent, or over 1/3! I'd like to see some detail on other people's phone bills, to see how they compare. To start, here's mine (exclusive of Sprint charges, which arrive as a separate bill, and I don't have any complaint with them) Local service: $14.47 Fed subs line charge 3.50 C & P short-haul long dist 3.09 Local Tax 4.60 Fed Tax .64 Local Tax surcharge .41 911 Tax .22 Thus, I am paying about 17.56 for phone service, 3.50 for federal line subsciber charge (you can decide if that is a tax or not), and about 5.87 in other taxes. This is worse than the tax on booze! Another thread: C & P has a .50 (or .75?) per month charge to maintain your inside wiring. I maintain my own inside wiring. It seems to me that periodically, that charge reappears on my phone bill and I have to call them up and tell them to take it off. I would call that sleazy behavior -- they keep sticking on a charge for an optional service that I don't want and I have to keep telling them to take it off. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 10:42:27 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Honolulu Phone Number in 1961 3 days ago, I saw an Elvis Presley exhibit with an April, 1961 letter from Pacific War Memorial Commission, P.O. Box 3801, Honolulu, Hawaii. The phone number was given as "510-715". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 20:29:59 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Phone Credit Cards I recently received a Southwestern Bell Select card. It had the same number as my AT&T card. It also had *someone else's* card in the envelope. I had *not* asked for a SWB card. I sent both cards back, along with a letter. In the letter, my concerns about their stuffing machine giving me another card...and Also, that I thought SWB should not have access to AT&T's data base to the point of getting the pin. SWB's reply was: "Regarding how we select the last four digits on your SelectCard, these digits are selected at random unless our customer prefers to select his own. In reply to SWB and AT&T sharing information over the database, even though we are separate comapnies, because we are a billing agent and have a contract with AT&T, long distance calls do appear on our records in order to answer customer inquiries." Fine! But this still does not answer why they share PINS. I feel the less folks having access to the PINS the better. SWB also conveniently (?) put my street address on the select card! I suggested that it was a poor practice to put addresses on any thing resembling a credit card, in the event of loss or theft, and also vis a vis single women who may be exploited if they lost their card... "Also let me address your concern referring to your address being printed on your card. Because we area service oriented comapny and the service is provided at your addres, our records include our customer's naem, address, and telephone number on the card". I know they have my address!!! I just disagreed with them printing it on the card. My card went back to 'em, along with the other joker's. They are lucky, I couldhave run up his bill a bunch for a month or so from pay phones (not cocots of course :-) but was being nice.... Mark Earle @ whereever this comes from ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #61 ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Jan 30 16:08:43 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA03879; Tue, 30 Jan 90 16:08:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac09969; 30 Jan 90 14:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14868; 30 Jan 90 3:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08011; 30 Jan 90 1:56 CST Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 1:37:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #62 Message-Id: <9001300137.ab32275@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: R TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jan 90 01:35:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Al Varney) Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Dave Levenson) Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use (Chip Rosenthal) Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Paul Wilczynski) Re: Sprint Stuff (John Higdon) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Tad Cook) Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Vance Shipley) Re: Zip/area Code Directory (Carl Moore) Sprint Access Trouble?? (Steve Elias) Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Jim Olsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Varney Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs Date: 29 Jan 90 17:31:13 GMT Reply-To: Al Varney Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article <3247@accuvax.nwu.edu> jj@jolnet.orpk.il.us (Joseph Jesson) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 56, message 3 of 9 >Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band >signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or >after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id >in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone >sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area. And you won't until you pay for it... >Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first >ring? I want to build a phase lock loop decoder... The code is sent in a 3-second "quiet" interval after the first ring. The interface isn't TOO complex, but I would encourage anyone who's really interested to order TR-TSY-000030, "SPCS/Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface", by Bellcore. The last number I had for them was (201) 699-5800 and they have always gladly taken AMEX cards. Since the signals are useless (and maybe even cause problems?) on lines not equipped with the correct equipment, they are only transmitted on lines that have activated delivery (Usage-sensitive) or have permanently subscribed to the service. I believe some switches may even allow permanent lines to temporarily "suspend" delivery, but Bellcore doesn't require this capability. Wish I got a commission for recommending Bellcore's TRs.... Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL Affiliation for ID purposes only, AT&T neither approved nor encouraged this. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs Date: 29 Jan 90 16:25:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <3247@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jj@jolnet.orpk.il.us (Joseph Jesson) writes: > Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band > signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or > after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id > in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone > sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area. > Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first > ring? I want to build a phase lock loop decoder... It is modem-style AFSK, not DTMF. It is sent at 1200 bps, using modulation similar to (but not compatible with) the old 202-series half-duplex modems. It is sent after the first full ring, and lasts for about two seconds. In NJ, it is only sent if you subscribe to the service. Subscription, for residence users, is $6.00 per month. 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: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use Date: 29 Jan 90 17:41:54 GMT Reply-To: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: >UUNET now provides access to its extensive collection of UNIX >related sources to non-subscribers. By calling 1-900-468-7727 and >using the login "uucp" with no password, anyone may uucp any of >UUNET's on line source collection. This doesn't seem to be totally setup yet. Although the 900 line is active and gets you the uunet login prompt, the Permissions file is not setup to allow anonymous uucp. That is, I received a "you are unknown to me" message and was thrown off. This is an excellent idea, and I hope it really does get implemented. Chip Rosenthal / chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG / Unicom Systems Development *** Chinacat will go down 31 Jan for relocation. *** Mail to me will be delayed approximately one week during this time. [Moderator's Note: However, I tried it via 'ftp uunet.uu.net' and it was willing to accept an anonymous login. This was late Sunday evening. Maybe it is working now. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 16:26 EST From: Boston Agency <0002740106@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail | [Moderator's Note: To get *to* MCI Mail from the internet, your mail | can be addressed like this: I am writing to box 123-4567 so the | internet address would be 0001234567@mcimail.com. In other words, add | three zeros to the left, drop out the dash, and add @mcimail.com. You don't have to add the 3 zeros on the left. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services Authorized MCI Mail Agency [Moderator's Note: Maybe you don't *have* to insert the three leading zeros, but every piece of mail I have received at an internet address originating at MCI Mail had 'em on there, including your letter to me, as per the 'from' line above. I assumed they were required. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 28 Jan 90 23:47:45 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon "John G. De Armond" writes: > On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN > starts with a "2". (Please don't clog the group here telling me that > yours is different. I make my statement based on some pretty reliable > statistics we collected when I was working with an AOS.) I don't mean to be a pill, but I have five (5) separate BOC calling cards on completely separate accounts. The PINs start with "1", "3", "4", "5", and "9". Trust me; I'm sitting here looking at them all lined up in a row. Now that's hardly a scientific cross section, but zero out of five would tend to discount the statement that "2" is some magic number, wouldn't you say? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Speaking of same, I just checked out my Illinois Bell Calling Card (which I prefer over the AT&T card with the same number, because the graphics on the IBT card are nicer). My PIN starts with a '3'. I have a copy of my parent's AT&T card (they are serviced by Southwestern Bell, but use the actual AT&T plastic), and it begins with a '5'. Maybe he meant to say most do NOT start with '2'. :) On the other hand, maybe he was illustrating how reliable most sinine perator ervices in verifying who they bill. PT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Date: 30 Jan 90 01:53:44 GMT Organization: very little Another comment to Jim Breem on the missuse of the word "ham", often applied to anyone with a radio. Jim says that since the Oxford Dictionary defines a ham as an operator of an amateur radio station, he contends that this could also apply to operators in the CB radio service. The CB radio service is in no way connected to the amateur radio service, any more than it is connected with the cellular service. One might imagine a cellular licensee complaining because a news report said that a cellular licensee was eavesdropping on cordless phone calls, just as hams might object if a news report claimed that amateur radio operators were doing the same. I'm sure to non-hams this seems nit-picky, but licensed amateur radio operators have always been quick to point out the distinctions between themselves, and other radio services. Tad Cook, KT7H tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 04:50:40 GMT Some modems provide a jack to plug a telset into. Often this jack is arranged to be disconnected while the modem is in use (Hayes 2400 do this for one). This provides a built in exclusion device, one that isn't based on questionable telephonic principles as some discussed here earlier. You must still wire the other telsets in after this unit. If your modem doesn't have the other jack, you're still ok. You probably have an extra relay for A & A1 control, a signaling circuit for 1A2 key systems of yesteryear. Check your DIP switch's, one may be for "single or multiline" use depending on the setting (Hayes are this way). The second pair of the line (BLK & YLW) is shorted when the modem is in use. Use this to drive an external relay and switch the other side off. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 9:36:47 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Zip/area Code Directory (Oops, that should have been ISBN, not ISBM, in my message.) Yes, I am aware that the latest area code split making it into that 1986 edition was 212/718 in NYC in 1984. I have sent a number of corrections to the publisher on Long Island since getting my own copy of it (among these are that Bronx is is 212, not 718); and a future mailing will include notes on 923xx (which is split between areas 714 and 619, instead of being all in 714), and a list of area code splits after 212/718. I don't know what plans there are to update it. ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Access Trouble?? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 09:17:23 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com I started having great difficult accessing Sprint, my default carrier, as of about 4 days ago. About 10% of calls get through, the rest get an "all carrier circuits busy" message. I've reported this to both Sprint and the local telco. Neither organization is aware of any problems. Has anyone else out there had trouble accessing Sprint in the last week? By the way, as soon as I reported the access problem to Sprint, they recommended that I try using casual use code 10222: MCI !!!! ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ From: Jim Olsen Subject: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 14:25:40 EST Well, I finally found out how to complain about those blasted call-blocking COCOT's. Last week, I had a few hours to kill in the West Palm Beach airport, which is filled with shiny, new, computerized COCOT's. I wanted to call back to Massachusetts, but, as you might guess, they all force you to use a slimy AOS (ITI in this case). I called the ATT 800-number and they commiserated with me, agreeing that "they're not supposed to do that." I asked them how to complain to the FCC, and the nice lady rummaged around for a few minutes and gave me the (long!) FCC address for complaints (see below). Please complain to the FCC when you encounter call blocking! It's one way to get the FCC moving. Here is the letter I wrote: Mr. Gregory J. Vogt Chief, Informal Complaints and Inquiries Bureau Enforcement Division Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2025 M Street NW, Room 6206 Washington, DC 20554 Dear Mr. Vogt: I write to complain that International Telecharge, Inc., in violation of the Commisssion's Order of February 24, 1989 (DA 89-237), is still engaging in the practice of ``call blocking,'' i.e., blocking access to other long distance telephone companies. On January 21 of this year, I was in the terminal of the Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, and I attempted to place a long-distance call to area code 617 via ATT, charged to my telephone credit card. All public phones in this terminal are computerized, with alphanumeric displays, and carry the name: Carey Communications Corp. 185 NW Spanish River Blvd., Suite 130 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Dialing 0+617+number connected me to an ITI operator. Upon inquiring of ITI and ATT, I learned that my call would cost $3.83 via ITI, and $0.98 via ATT. There is no reason whatsoever that I would choose ITI over ATT for this call, if I were allowed to choose. When I tried dialing 10288+0+617+number (to access ATT), I got a visual message ``INVALID NUMBER'', and a voice message saying ``The number you have dialed is an invalid number.'' Both messages started as soon as I dialed 10288+0+6. The telephone was obviously programmed to block such calls. I then tried dialing ``00''. This produced the voice message ``One moment for the ITI operator,'' and about a minute later the ITI operator answered. I asked to be transferred to the ATT operator. After I insisted, he then `attempted' to transfer me, and announced that he could not. I tried this a total of eight times, from eight different phones (telephone numbers 407-640-3735, 3786, 3925, 3926, 4860, 4930, 4958, and 4991) and got precisely the same results every time. On the last call, I asked to speak with a supervisor, who eventually told me - ITI could not transfer calls to ATT - I should dial ``00'' to get the ATT operator When I told him that ``00'' connected me to ITI, he said that the phone must be `malfunctioning'. When I informed him that all the phones worked that way, and that call blocking is illegal, he said that he had informed me how to access ATT, and that was all he was legally required to do. As you are probably aware, ``call blocking'' is becoming a standard practice in transportation terminals and elsewhere. I do hope the the FCC will take some enforcement action to curb this practice. In default of such action, I fear that the Commission's Order (DA 89-237) is rapidly becoming a dead letter. Very Truly Yours, James J. Olsen [Moderator's Note: Intrigued by your article, I just now called Boca DA to find the number for 'Carey Communications'... there was nothing listed for that name at all in Boca. I think this calls for some investigation, and on Tuesday I shall review the matter in my office with one of my associates. Watch for a message Wednesday morning if possible discussing this organization in detail. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #62 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18537; 31 Jan 90 3:44 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15731; 31 Jan 90 2:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24642; 31 Jan 90 1:00 CST Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 0:41:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #63 BCC: Message-ID: <9001310041.ab19203@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Jan 90 00:40:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Text-To-Speech Question (Steve Hoffman) CHILL Language (David M. Karr) Questions About Country Code File in Archives (Carl Moore) Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Steve Elias) Caller ID in New Jersey (Don Alvarez) Southwestern Bell Freedom Phones (W. W. Scott) Re: Zip/area Code Directory (Tad Cook) Paperless FAX Server Using a Digital PBX (Stacey M. Singel) 10XXX List From LEC (Ken Jongsma) Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Peter Marshall) Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Paul Wilczynski) Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use (Chip Rosenthal) More Misdialed Numbers (Robert Kaplan) Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Adam M. Gaffin) Checksum Algorithms (David Tamkin) Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Allen Nogee) Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Gordon Burditt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 10:45:29 PST From: "Steve, MLO3-1, 223-7186" Subject: Text-To-Speech Question In TELECOM V10 #53, Kenneth East incorrectly indicated that DEC was no longer selling DECtalk voice synthesizer devices -- we most certainly are still selling both the DECtalk I standalone unit and the DECtalk III rackmount unit. [And we just ECO'd a DECtalk ROM!] Call 508-493-0645 for the DECtalk demo, or call -1923 or -8255 for the DECvoice demo (DECvoice is a large superset of DECtalk, it is a quad Q-bus module for BA23 or BA123 enclosure microVAX/VAXstation/VAXserver systems.) Steve Hoffman DEC Voice Products Group ------------------------------ From: "David M. Karr" Subject: CHILL Language Date: 30 Jan 90 16:52:59 GMT Reply-To: "David M. Karr" Organization: Teltrend, Inc., Kirkland, WA In the February, 1990 (V25, #2) issue of SIGPLAN, there is a notice about a conference on the CHILL language, which is specifically designed for implementation of telecommunications systems. It is endorsed by CCITT. Where can I get more information on this language? If CCITT has endorsed it already, there should be papers published by now. David Karr dave@ttrnds.UUCP or ...amc-gw!ttrnds!dave Teltrend Corp., 12034 115th Ave. NE, Kirkland, WA 98034 (206)820-6500 "The above statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 10:26:27 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Questions About Country Code File in Archives I have some questions about country.code.list in the archives. It has Zaire as +24 but I have it as +243 . Could someone resolve this? I am sticking with 243 for now. Re: City Code for Valparaiso, Chile: I have 31, but country.codes.list has 32. Please check. Re: City Code for Cuenca, Ecuador: I have 4 for both Cuenca and Guayaquil, but the archives file has 7 and 4 respectively. Which is correct? ------------------------------ Subject: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 22:14:21 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light in coax cable... (.72 to .76, or some such). Does anyone know the propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is used for long lines?? Have I just happened upon a PR coup for the backwards long lines companies, like ATT and MCI??? (gotta love that long distance carrier loyalty, eh, folks?) ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ From: Don Alvarez Subject: Caller ID in New Jersey Date: 30 Jan 90 16:12:48 GMT Reply-To: Don Alvarez Organization: Princeton University I keep reading that New Jersey has Caller ID. Does anyone know if it is available in the 609-924-xxxx area (Princeton)? Thanks Don ------------------------------ From: W W Scott Subject: Southwestern Bell Freedom Phones Date: 31 Jan 90 02:22:28 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research My brother-in-law is having trouble finding a store that sells the SWB FF cordless phones in Baltimore. Can anybody suggest a store that carries them? Thank you, Wayne Scott ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Zip/area Code Directory Date: 31 Jan 90 03:12:18 GMT Organization: very little In response to the moderator's questions about the posting on the Ruthie Marks book on ZIP Codes and Area Codes, yes, they have had several editions since the 1986 on mentioned. I talked to them on the phone yesterday, and they will have a new one out in March. It is still under 4 bucks, and a dollar for shipping. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: TUE JAN 30, 1990 08.19.52 EST From: "Stacey M. Singel, X85004" Subject: Paperless FAX Server Using a Digital PBX Lehigh University is currently developing a paperless fax server on campus using a digital PBX, the Intecom IBX S/80, an applications processor and a fax server computer. To process incoming faxes, each user will be assigned his own fax number on the PBX. These numbers will forward to one of several actual fax machines, which will convert the signal to digital and pass it along to a computer for storage, using the original fax number. The user will be notified via phone (ring, light) that a fax has been received and they in turn will dial in to retrieve it. For outgoing faxes, the user will create a document in a word processor or scan (via scanner) an existing document and send it to the fax server computer. The computer will send the document when a fax machine is available and the user will be notified that the document has been successfully transmitted. Do you know of anyone currently working on this type of solution? Lehigh would appreciate any shareable information on this subject. ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: 10XXX List From LEC Date: Tue, 30-Jan-90 15:07:38 PST Just out of curiosity, I called Michigan Bell to see if they would tell me what 10xxx carriers were available in my area. The rep said he would be glad to mail a list to me. Today I received a preprinted flyer with 16 companies listed as serving Michigan. About half of them were checked as serving my exchange with 3 additional ones hand written in. There were no codes listed for each company, but there was an 800 number listed for each one. It appears that the 10XXX list that was recirculated here recently is somewhat out of date, as about half of the companies on the list from Michigan Bell were not on the 10XXX list. I'm sure there would be a lot of interest if someone that access to a newer version would pass it along. In any case, it would seem that Ameritech (Michigan Bell) has no problems with providing a list of carriers. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! Date: 30 Jan 90 17:22:21 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Further re: Tad Cook's post re: FCC and Modem Charges, and Patrick's note: Patrick's observation that "eternal vigilance" is required seems pretty appropriate, as does his querying why the FCC doesn't close the docket in question. As to Tad's comments, there may still be some residual confusion here: The subject in question is not a "modem tax," as has been pointed out previously here, I believe. Further, it is hard to construe the current state of this affair as an attempt to end the present ESP exemption. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 19:54 EST From: Boston Agency <0002740106@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail | [Moderator's Note: Maybe you don't *have* to insert the three leading zeros, | but every piece of mail I have received at an internet address | originating at MCI Mail had 'em on there, including your letter to me, | as per the 'from' line above. I assumed they were required. PT] Actually, those leading zeros are inserted by MCI Mail upon sending the message out to the Internet. In fact, you don't even have to use to the MCI ID (mailbox number). You can use the Formal Name or Username as long as it's unique. For example, I tested a message to myself using .... boston agency@mcimail.com and it worked fine. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services Authorized MCI Mail Agency [Moderator's Note: But that only works provided you are *certain* the user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths. That's why the numerical address method is preferred. Take no chances, and insure your mail gets to the right party. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 15:42:15 CST From: Chip Rosenthal > I was able to log on uunet.uu.net as anonymous just now. Yep. It appears that they have fixed their Permissions file for anon uucp. Chip Rosenthal / chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG / Unicom Systems Development *** Chinacat will go down 31 Jan for relocation. *** Mail to me will be delayed approximately one week during this time. [Moderator's Note: And a message from Carl Moore said the same thing. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 14:26:46 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: More Misdialed Numbers My telephone number at home is 442-8737. The Rochester Public Library's recorded message giving the hours it is open is 428-7376. All it takes is a little bounce and a cheap phone to repeat the initial "4." Needless to say, I frequently received calls there asking when I was open (but I never worked up the nerve to give silly answers). Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion. [Moderator's Note: I used to work at a place where my internal extension was 7262. The first four digits of the restaurant in the lobby of the building was RANdolph-6 (726)-2xxx. I can't tell you how many times my phone would ring at noontime; I would answer, and the voice on the other end would say 'wrong number' and hang up....they forgot to dial the '9' required before placing the outside call. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 20:46:23 EST From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call. If the person says "no," the computer tells him or her to hang up (I don't know what happens when you answer "maybe," my girlfriend thought I was crazy enough to try it just once!). A NE Tel spokeswoman says, by the way, that no operators will lose their jobs because of the new system, but that some may have their hours reduced. Adam Gaffin Middlesex News ("MetroWest's hometown paper, but you knew that!") [Moderator's Note: And this is also a new source for fraud, as people are learning that their name can be anything at all, i.e. 'I will be home in an hour'; 'meet me at 5:00 PM at the airport', etc....to which the called party responds 'no', and disconnects. No charge for the call, yet a message delivered quite well. At least a live operator knows it is unlikely your name will be 'call me back at abc-wxyz'; the computer knows from zilch. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Checksum Algorithms Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 22:29:02 CST From John De Armond in Telecom Digest, Volume 10, Issue 58: | The reason for this is simple. All visa/MC/Amex type and the phone | company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a | published standard of checksuming the digits of the card. The last | digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits | algorithm. This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but | I don't have the specifics handy. The algorithm for credit cards worked on only one of my calling cards, but then none of them are from AT&T nor a BOC. 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: Allen Nogee Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs Date: 29 Jan 90 16:11:48 GMT Organization: gte In article <3247@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jj@jolnet.orpk.il.us (Joseph Jesson) writes: > Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first > ring? I want to build a phase lock loop decoder... It is 1200 baud FSK 1/2 second AFTER the first ring. ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups Date: 28 Jan 90 23:25:30 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >The proposed change in rules at the FCC would require all >long-distance companies to obtain written customer permission before >notifying local telephone companies of a customer selection of >long-distance carrier. This written authorization would have to be >provided on request in the event of a dispute by the customer >regarding who was to handle their calls. Sigh. If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right: Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance companies (unless said carriers issue blanket approval that they'll accept anyone) before customers notify local telephone companies of a customer selection of long-distance carrier. This written authorization would have to be provided on request by the customer in the event of a dispute by the long-distance company as to whether they would accept the customer. Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #63 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20778; 31 Jan 90 4:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26266; 31 Jan 90 3:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15731; 31 Jan 90 2:04 CST Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 1:22:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #64 BCC: Message-ID: <9001310122.ab15673@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Jan 90 01:20:53 CST Volume 10 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson The Late 10-SPR (David Tamkin) Why 10222+ Doesn't Take MCI Calling Card Numbers (David A. Cantor) Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Simon Poole) Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (Tad Cook) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Ken Dykes) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Higdon) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Anthony E. Siegman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: The Late 10-SPR Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:13:45 CST Steve Vance wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 54: | In article <3038@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: | | >My default has always been AT&T, but if I use "10222" or "10333", the | >bill for the call comes from MCI or Sprint directly, just as if I was | | Sprint is 10777, n'est pas? 777=SPR for Sprint. Friday morning I was ready to answer Mr. Vance's question like this: * When U.S.Tel and GTE merged their long distance carriers (and their * packet nets) on July 1, 1986, US Sprint inherited U.S.Telecom's 10333 * code and GTE Sprint's 10777. Both codes work. * * US Sprint publicizes 10333; I imagine that's because it is shorter to * pulse dial. Sometimes a listing of carriers allows room for only one * 10XXX code per company, and moreover, printing two codes would puzzle * people. I can easily picture this conversation: "But which should * I use?" "Either one, whichever you like." "But which is *better*?" * * On the other hand, the mnemonic value if 10SPR is worth something, so I * doubt that they'll abandon 10777. They can't let ATT, ITT, and * Telecom*USA outdo them on this score, after all. But as I was typing that on the morning of January 26, I decided to try 10777-1-700-555-4141 from my voice line. My telco (Central Telephone of Illinois) intercepted it after the 700, whereas a call to 10333-1-700-555-4141 went through to US Sprint's ID recording. It was Centel's rejection recording, not US Sprint's, that I heard the first time. It surprised me that they would give up the mnemonic code, since they were so hot to get assignment of the (800) 877 prefix [as in U S S(print)]. Accordingly, I phoned US Sprint Customer Service. The rep told me that they normally give out only 10333, but both 10333 and 10777 should work. She said rather unsurely that in some areas only one or the other might function. Nonetheless, as far as she knew, 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 was *never* supposed to work, because the purpose of 1-700-555-4141 is to learn who is a line's primary carrier. Forcing it to a specific 10XXX code would make it useless. When I said that people call 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 to hear what each carrier's recording sounds like, she said that it might satisfy phone buffs' curiosity but wasn't really a necessary function. She did allow that it could be of value for determining to which carrier a particular 10XXX code connects. I said I'd wait until night rates were in effect Friday night or Saturday and try placing a call to an actual number with 10777. I did; as with 10777-1-700-555-4141, my telco rejected it after 10777-1-NPA. Since then a Digest has come out in which John Higdon said that US Sprint is phasing 10777 out. I truly am surprised. On Sunday I tried 10777 from an Illinois Bell phone (at my parents' home in another neighborhood of Chicago). 10777-1-700-555-4141 was interrupted after the 700 with "The number you have dialed cannot be reached with the carrier code you used. Please check the code and dial again or call your carrier for assistance." They assume that 10XXX will not be accidentally dialed by someone who has no idea what a carrier is (yeah, it's someone who has a disease and can give it to other people but doesn't get sick from it). 10777-1+ a real phone number was intercepted with the same message only after I dialed all sixteen digits, however. Today I can try asking both local companies why they have disabled 10777, but I doubt that I'd get any better response than "You don't need it; you can get US Sprint with 10333," or "Sprint asked us to." 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: Tue, 30 Jan 90 06:30:44 PST From: "David A. Cantor 30-Jan-1990 0914" Subject: Why 10222+ Doesn't Take MCI Calling Card Numbers In the confusion of moving, getting two new phone lines, separated by several months, having MCI Expressphone service based on a now-unused local telephone number from my own residence, and establishing MCI Expressphone service based on my second, newly-installed local line, I've had to call MCI Expressphone several times to get everything resolved. I won't go into details here yet, as the issue is not yet fully resolved, and I believe MCI will get it right this time. But last night, I needed to call customer service yet again, and I was tired of getting differing stories from different customer service representatives, so I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately when a representative answered my call. The representative, of course, wanted to handle the problem herself (without knowing what the problem was), but I insisted, and after a two-minute wait, a supervisor answered the phone and identified herself. She was very patient and listened to my whole horror story, and she and I worked out a solution. It yet remains to be seen whether it works. I'll report the details and the results when I'm satisfied that everything is final. But as long as I had her on the line, I asked her about 10222+ dialing from payphones. I elaborated that some COCOT operators don't allow 950-1022, and some divert 1-800-950-1022, and some let the 800-number through, but disconnect on use of the keypad. She said that 10222+0+10d is supposed to work, but that you cannot use the MCI calling card. 10222+0 will get an MCI operator that can complete the call, but has no way of charging the call to an MCI calling card. (Well, I find that to be ludicrous, but, hey, that's apparently MCI's official rule. In actuality, I've reached an MCI operator through 10222+0 who did try to complete a call and charg it to my MCI account, but perhaps I just got an obliging operator. Maybe they're not supposed to do that. (Unfortunately, the call wasn't answered, so I don't know if the billing would have been correct if the call were completed.)) Anyway, the supervisor I was speaking to said that if I find the keypad blocked, call either 950-1022 or 1-800-950-1022 again and wait for a timeout, and an operator will pick up. This operator will then complete the connection and charge the call to an MCI calling card number. I didn't remember to ask if it would be charged at dial rates or operator-handled rates. The 75 cent surcharge does apply, though. Dave C. ------------------------------ From: Simon Poole Subject: Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries Reply-To: Simon Poole Organization: SWITCH Zuerich, Switzerland Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 09:57:07 GMT In article <3177@accuvax.nwu.edu> HANK@barilvm.bitnet (Hank Nussbacher) writes: ..... > Country 5km 10km 50km 200km 500km > ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ ..... > Switzerland | 758.8 | 1523.5 | 1739 | 6604.4 | 8810.3 | These numbers seem to be rather wrong (ignoring the 500km bit, which is a joke). According to my copy of the Swiss PTT tariffs the numbers would be more like: 820 920 2460 3901 These are the worst case costs. Particularly if you are inside the same "Taxkreis" it's somewhat cheaper: 5km 10km "Einfachbenutzung" 167+14 333+14 "Mehrfachbenutzung" 167+67 334+67 All of the fees are split into a "Abonnementsgebuehr" and into a "Regal- gebuehr", the "Regalgebuehr" is classifed into three categories: a) "Einfachbenutzung" ("simple use") (don't ask me what this is) b) "Mehrfachbenutzung" ("multiple use") inside the same company c) "Mehrfachbenutzung" with any other end points With the exception of lines inside the same "Taxkreis", the fee for a) is multiplied with a factor of 1.8 to get b) and with a factor of 3 to get c). The breakdown of the costs I gave above is: "Abbonnementsgebuehr" "Regalgebuehr" 5 km 100 240 10 km 200 240 50 km 900 520 200 km 1900 667 Simon Poole poole@verw.switch.ch/poole@chx400.switch.ch/mcsun!cernvax!chx400!poole ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics Date: 31 Jan 90 03:08:14 GMT Organization: very little David Tamkin had an AMAZING story about trying to use MCI as a secondary carrier, and all the problems he had with MCI, IL Bell, and Centel when they kept assigning MCI as the primary carrier against his wishes. I am happy to report that we tried such as scheme with Sprint, and did not have this kind of problem. A female friend is sharing a phone with several roomates, and wanted separate billing for her long distance calls. Their equal access carrier of choice is AT&T, and so she just called sprint, and asked for an account in her name and gave them the shared phone number, which is not in her name. Then I told her how to dial 10333 before making toll calls, and it has worked just great. She likes the sound quality on Sprint, she gets separate billing for calls that she knows are hers, and her roomates probably think she doesn't make any toll calls! I use a similar scheme for a certain class of call at my house. We have 2 line Centrex service, with MCI on one line and Sprint on the other. For some reason when it comes time to claim long distance calls, I have the most trouble remembering the intra-LATA calls around the 206 area. For these, I dial a cheapo reseller, Call U.S. (10212). The calls are cheaper than the intra LATA service from US West, and I always know that those calls are mine. Call US doesnt have any trouble with billing calls from both our lines on one account. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 08:02:45 EST From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo In article <3305@accuvax.nwu.edu> it was written: >I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per >month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I >[Moderator's Note: You bet! Listed numbers are the default, and the >theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the operator >because of the people, who not finding it in the book, call to argue >with the operator about it; particularly when he can't find it to give >out either. Charges for non-pub service are part of tariffs in every >state. PT] As a form of confirmation to this theory, I relate my experience with Bell Canada. I went to have a 2nd line (mostly modem) ordered from the Phone Centre, and on the "form" was actually a space asking how I wanted "it listed" as opposed to the question of who is paying for it. Well, I wanted unlisted, but didnt want to pay for unlisting, so I used OLD TRICK NUMBER 5123443 and put in a name different than my own. (K.Dijkstra instead of K. Dykes, original eh? :-) :-) When the paperwork got to the real clerical type within Bell, I got a phone call "to confirm your order and details", she went on to ask why I wanted it listed under a different name, I told the truth "I don't want to pay for unlisted". Her response was "Oh! you don't have to, as long as you have at least one listed under your real name." And come to think of it, since I DO have one listed already, it would be cheaper not to put in the fake listing; after all each line printed also costs money, the 1st line is "worth it", the rest are COSTS to them. I sure have a rough life here in Southern Ontario, basic unlimited local service, quite a large calling area (population wise) for about cdn$13.00/month ie: both lines together are $26.00 and I hear there are places you can pay almost that much for *ONE* line!?!?? But we do pay extra for touchtone, there are traditions to uphold... :-( - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@waterloo.csnet kgdykes@water.bitnet watmath!kgdykes watmath!watbun!kgdykes postmaster@watbun.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 30 Jan 90 11:06:25 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon From: "W.L. Ware" writes: > I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per > month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I > be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally > charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that? In California, you can short circuit that charge if you are willing to have one of your lines listed. The tarrif provides that if you have listed service in your name at a particular address, then subsequent unlisted lines are not billed as unpublished numbers. That's the way it's done at my home--there are ten lines billed under four accounts; one number is listed and all the rest are unlisted for free. Check it out in your area. Sometimes you have to point out the obvious to the reps. Every time I add a line they mention the "non-pub" charge and then I remind them of the rules. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Likewise here in Chicago, either at least one line listed OR payment of one non-pub fee is sufficient. In other words, I am non-pub in entirety; but I pay for it on one line only; the other one has a 'free' (non)-listing. However, in our final message for this issue, Mr. Siegman tells us the *real reason* this charge is imposed on subscribers. Read on.... and smile! PT] ------------------------------ From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 30 Jan 90 18:56:01 GMT Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" Organization: Stanford University >> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the >> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, >> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he >> can't find it either. No, no!! Tom Lehrer (or was it Mort Sahl) explained this years ago. It's because, when they take your number out of the phone book, they have to move all the subsequent numbers up one. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #64 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22516; 31 Jan 90 5:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16277; 31 Jan 90 4:13 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26266; 31 Jan 90 3:09 CST Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 2:57:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #65 BCC: Message-ID: <9001310257.ab27965@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Jan 90 02:55:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson What's Up With Carey Communications (TELECOM Moderator) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (John Higdon) Voice Dialing (Carol Springs) The Cause of the AT&T Outage (Will Martin) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Julian Macassey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 2:16:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: What's Up With Carey Communications In the Digest on Tuesday, Jim Olsen wrote: Subject: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain >Well, I finally found out how to complain about those blasted >call-blocking COCOT's. Last week, I had a few hours to kill in the >West Palm Beach airport, which is filled with shiny, new, computerized >COCOT's. I wanted to call back to Massachusetts, but, as you might >guess, they all force you to use a slimy AOS (ITI in this case). ..... >On January 21 of this year, I was in the terminal of the Palm Beach >International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, and I attempted to >place a long-distance call to area code 617 via ATT, charged to my >telephone credit card. All public phones in this terminal are >computerized, with alphanumeric displays, and carry the name: > Carey Communications Corp. > 185 NW Spanish River Blvd., Suite 130 > Boca Raton, FL 33431 >Dialing 0+617+number connected me to an ITI operator. Upon inquiring >When I tried dialing 10288+0+617+number (to access ATT), I got a >visual message ``INVALID NUMBER'', and a voice message saying ``The >number you have dialed is an invalid number.'' Both messages started >as soon as I dialed 10288+0+6. The telephone was obviously programmed >to block such calls. I then tried dialing ``00''. This produced the >voice message ``One moment for the ITI operator,'' and about a minute >later the ITI operator answered. I asked to be transferred to the ATT >operator. After I insisted, he then `attempted' to transfer me, and >announced that he could not. I tried this a total of eight times, >from eight different phones (telephone numbers 407-640-3735, 3786, >3925, 3926, 4860, 4930, 4958, and 4991) and got precisely the same >results every time. ..... >When I told him that ``00'' connected me to ITI, he said that the >phone must be `malfunctioning'. When I informed him that all the >phones worked that way, and that call blocking is illegal, he said >that he had informed me how to access ATT, and that was all he was >legally required to do. On Tuesday, I asked an associate in my office to try and locate Carey Communications and give us a little background on the organization, and the owner(s).....you may recall that no listed number for the company appears in Boca Raton, FL, despite the sign on each COCOT giving 185 Northwest Spanish River Blvd., Suite 250, Boca Raton as the company's address. A call to the Florida Secretary of State Corporate Records Lookups Office (904-488-9000; wait on hold from two to five minutes) produced this information: Carey Communications Corporation is in bad standing with the Florida Secretary of State as of 10-13-89, for failure to file their annual corporate report. They have a year, until 10-13-90 to cure this deficiency. A Director of the corporation, and Registered Agent (the person upon whom legal service would be made) is Michael Carey. Another Director is T. Patrick Boggs. They are the only two corporate officers listed. The corporate address and the address of the Registered Agent was shown as 185 N.W. Spanish River Blvd.. Suite 250, Boca Raton, FL. Since there was no listing with 407-DA for the firm, we next consulted our criss-cross for Boca....and the criss-cross, with a 'corrected to:' date of November 1, 1989 showed the address to be an office building called "Spanish River Executive Place". In the listings within that caption, we found both "Carey Communications at 407-392-3778 and a second listing for "Carey Company" at 407-367-9147. The listing for "Carey Company" noted the firm engaged in real estate development. Both numbers were found to be disconnected; both were intercepted and referred to 407-835-0335, a West Palm Beach number. Using the 'telokey' portion of the West Palm Beach criss-cross (we had used the 'addressokey' section earlier) we found nothing for the numbers, again in a book corrected to mid-November, 1989. Therefore we concluded the company had apparently moved in the recent past -- sometime in the past two months -- to their new location. A call to 407-DA for West Palm Beach confirmed the phone number was listed to Carey Communications, at 3030 South Dixie Highway in West Palm Beach, FL 33405. The criss-cross referred to this address as the "Vincent Building", and noted another tenant there was the City of West Palm Beach Employees' Credit Union. My associate spoke at some length with Michael Carey about the payphones in the airport, and asked what, if anything, had been done or was being done to comply with FCC regs. Mr. Carey was candid in admitting there had been 'a recent FCC complaint answered', and that he had personally visited the airport, and tested several phones at random to insure they worked 'correctly'. He said that henceforth, dialing '10288-0' would connect to an AT&T operator; the calling card could not be entered on the pad, but would have to be passed to the operator manually. He went on to note that until several months ago, AT&T had been the default carrier at the airport; that is, '00' went to AT&T instead of ITI as it does now. Why the change? Carey claims *the airport management made him do it* !! He said to our interviewer that the airport complained about the 'poor revenue and commissions THEY (the airport) was getting, and demanded something different.....so ITI was brought in. Mr. Carey complained about the terms of his contract with the airport, and the difficulty he had and was having in meeting the terms while making a profit for himself; indeed, even breaking even on his investment. He said the old airport had 90 payphones; the new facility has 201 (of his phones) on the premises. This is more than double what had been there before, yet the total call volume per month averages only about fifteen percent higher than at the old facility. He'd prefer to have fewer phones there -- possibly reducing the number by one-third or more -- but the airport won't allow it. He pointed out that line charges from the local Bell alone are many thousands of dollars per month, and that some of his COCOTS produce less than $5 per *month* in the coin box. It was pointed out to Mr. Carey that in all likelyhood, {TELECOM Digest} readers passing through the airport in the future might very well audit the COCOTS for compliance with FCC regs. Mr. Carey responded that was 'okay with him', and that all the phones now would accept 10288-0 as a valid dialing sequence. He also said in his defense that he had had conversations with AT&T about getting a code from them -- 'an 800 number' -- which could be programmed into a speed dial combination on the phones; and that AT&T promised to get back to him, but never did so. Mr. Carey claims he would prefer to have AT&T there, and would prefer to allow his customers the ease of 'speed-dialing' into AT&T, but thus far it just hasn't worked out for him. He was asked if he had any electronic mail address, on any system we interconnect with, i.e. MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, Compuserve, etc...so a copy of this message and the original message could be sent to him. He said he did not have, but asked if he could receive a copy. He was told a copy would be sent by US Mail to his attention. Perhaps one or more of you will favor Mr. Carey with a printed copy of yesterday's Digest, and this follow up. It should be made clear to him that knowledgeable and sophisticated users of the phone network know the rules very well, and will assist in their enforcement when needed. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 29 Jan 90 22:51:03 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon In article <3222@accuvax.nwu.edu> stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes: >Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better >than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you >dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money, >it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes". When you ^^^^^^^^^^ >do so, your call goes thru. When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell >pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent >deposit." You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL. This is the >same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not >working! SOME COCOTs will do that. But more important, you failed to mention the downside of that little difference. With a Pac*Bell phone you may have to hang up and place your call again after dropping in your twenty cents, but then you can talk *as long as you like*, not just for fifteen minutes. This fifteen minutes business seems to also be applied to "free" calls. A friend of mine called from out of the area on my INWATS from a COCOT and presto-chango after we had been on the phone for about 15 minutes--click! This is convenience? No, this is garbage. Oh, I know, the COCOT owner would lose money if you could talk all day and tie up his phone. That's his problem, not John Q. Public's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be. No, the only advantage to some COCOTs is the ability to outsmart the "smart" phone and make calls at the owner's expense, enabling the caller to save up to 100%. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Voice Dialing Date: 30 Jan 90 17:45:22 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA The following AP article appeared in the Boston Herald on Tuesday, January 30: KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- US Sprint said yesterday some customers will be able to place long-distance calls with their voices by summer in what would be the first voice-activated dialing offered by a long-distance company. Sprint said the new service, targeted toward business travelers, would allow a caller to use a spoken password instead of a standard long-distance travel card, which requires callers to punch in as many as many as 24 digits. In addition, a caller could speed-dial certain pre-registered numbers by saying passwords such as "call home" into a phone. The company said the new system would provide greater security against unauthorized use of calling cards by ensuring the caller's voice matched a pre-registered voice pattern. "These are the features the traveling public tells us they want," said Syd Courson, a spokesman for Kansas City-based Sprint, the nation's third-largest long-distance company. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said it has the technology to offer similar voice-activated services and is testing to determine which features are in demand. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 13:53:17 CST From: Will Martin Subject: The cause of the AT&T Outage What still seems unclear to me, even after reading the "official" AT&T technical explanation for the 15 Jan network problems and the other info that has been on the net and in the media, is just why it was triggered at the time it happened. If the new software had been in place since mid-December, and its failure was triggered by a "minor hardware problem" (as per the AT&T statement) or unspecified "internal problems" (as per Telephony), does this mean that all during the preceeding month there were NO hardware difficulties amongst all the 114 4ESS switches in the network? Or did the failure have to occur in a really busy switch during a busy time (like mid-afternoon in New York) in order to trigger the particular breakdown that then rippled out thru the network? If the latter, then other similar failures could have happened at random times to random 4ESSs and not triggered the bug. Since AT&T stated they were able to reproduce the problem in the lab, they now know at least one set of precise conditions that trigger the bug. Have they published that info? (Its not like to do so would open them to vulnerabilities; not only have they fixed the software to prevent a reoccurence, but, if a hostile party had sufficient intimate access to the network to create the trigger conditions, they would also have enough access to be able to do a lot more damage than just this clogging condition.) Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 31 Jan 90 05:02:35 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <3305@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu! wlw2286@uunet.uu.net (W.L. Ware) writes: > I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per > month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I > be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally > charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that? Why you people with unlisted numbers are such complainers I will never know. Unlisted numbers are for the rich and famous. Obviously they can afford to pay a pittance so Robin Leach won't call at 1 AM while they are ravishing the chamber maid. If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or Jim Bakker. For free they will also not put in a street address. Not only is this free, but now you can tell those really important people how to reach you. You say: "I am listed as Ivan Boesky". So if they are out for the evening and have left their Filofax in the Mercedes, they can call Information and ask for Ivan Boesky. Of course, if privacy is what you really crave, stop submitting to net news and disconnect the phone. Direct all communications to your bailiff. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 [Moderator's Note: I guess he told us where we stand, huh? He may not know what size britches we wear, but obviously he thinks we are too big for them. Good day....see you again tomorrow! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #65 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12283; 1 Feb 90 4:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01319; 1 Feb 90 2:29 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16527; 1 Feb 90 1:19 CST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:10:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #67 BCC: Message-ID: <9002010110.ab26501@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:10:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (William Degnan) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Pushpendra Mohta) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (The Blade) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Colin Plumb) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Don Alvarez) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (A. R. White) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (Rob Warnock) Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) Re: Faxnet Info Request (David Daniel) Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Mary Winters) Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Jim Budler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 0:36:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? WW>I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per WW>month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I WW>be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally WW>charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that? WW>Lance WW>*W.L.Ware In a FidoNet echo (partly in jest), I discussed the use of "other" names as the listed name as an alternate to unlisted/non published service. In a call to the business office: "Yes, I want to order a telephone line for my son 'Data' -- named him for the guy on the TV show." Anyhow, I think people might actually be doing this stuff. :) I have seen cases where people list their phones in their dog's name or other more interesting pseudonyns. I do not recommend it -- merely report the activity. Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock (and in this case, it is still not advice). 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: Wed, 31 Jan 90 03:42:00 PST From: Pushpendra Mohta Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? You can pay all you want ( or don't want ) for unlisting your number and yet there is no defence against your friendly area carpet cleaning agency who dials a few randomly selected numbers in your local calling zone. Much like recieving Junk Mail addressed to "Current Resident". And one would think adding your name to the phone book would make the phone company move everything one down too. No ? :-) Pushpendra Mohta ------------------------------ Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? From: The Blade Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 13:06:28 PST Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM Maybe you can answer this question. I have heard in the past that there is some way (legally) that one can get unpublished numbers. Ive seen it advertised is a book, but never bought it. Any help? Blade [Moderator's Note: In the event of a dire emergency, or occassionally some other non-frivilous reason, the person with the non-pub will be notified of your desire to be connected. You pass your initial request to the supervisor; the supervisor in turn tells the Group Chief Operator; the GCO will call the keepers of the non-pub records and tell them of the problem. They will contact the subscriber and advise them that you have claimed there is an emergency and that immediate contact is required. Does the subscriber wish for them to give you the number, or would the subscriber care to take the caller's number and deal with it themselves? In any event, you won't be holding on the line waiting for an answer from Directory Assistance. You will have disconnected; and in due course you will be called back by a responsible employee of telco; you'll identify yourself to their satisfaction and they will notify you of the callee's decision in the matter. Police/Fire and other emergency service agencies can short-cut this *somewhat* by calling direct to their contact at telco; but even then, only selected executives at these agencies know *who* and *where* to call at telco; that information is available only on a 'need-to-know' basis. Most Bell telcos are very dedicated to protecting the privacy of their subscribers who have requested it. PT] ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 1 Feb 90 04:03:16 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <3353@accuvax.nwu.edu> kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) writes: >I sure have a rough life here in Southern Ontario, basic unlimited >local service, quite a large calling area (population wise) for about >cdn$13.00/month ie: both lines together are $26.00 and I hear there >are places you can pay almost that much for *ONE* line!?!?? But we do >pay extra for touchtone, there are traditions to uphold... :-( Gee, you seem to be paying too much... I forget how much local service costs me exactly, but it's $8.xx a month for pulse POTS. Add rental of two of the classic indestructible telephones (they were called something 500's by some TELECOM people, I think) at $1.75 a month and a bit of tax, and my total local phone bill is about $13. Of course, I can add $100/month long-distance for myself and almost the same for my housemates combined and local service is trivial. Anyone know how to get a really low rate (I've got it to $7.14/hr using after-11 and a 15% discount plan) to *one number* in Toronto for a great many hours a month? I wish I could pay them $100/month to add Toronto to my local dialling area. It's only an hour and a half drive, after all. -Colin ------------------------------ From: Don Alvarez Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Date: 31 Jan 90 15:08:25 GMT Reply-To: Don Alvarez Organization: Princeton University In article <3335@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light >in coax cable... (.72 to .76, or some such). Does anyone know the >propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is >used for long lines?? From the Reference Data for Radio Engineers, published by the Federal Telephone and Radio Corporation (an associate of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation) Copyright 1943. Telephone Transmission Line Data Characteristics of Standard Types of Aerial Wire Telephone Circuits At 1000 Cycles Per Second Type of Circuit Gauge Spacing Velocity (mils) (in.) (miles/s) Non-Pole Pair Physical 165 8 179,000 Non-Pole Pair Side 165 12 179,500 Pole Pair Side 165 18 178,000 Non-Pole Pair Phantom 165 12 177,500 Non-Pole Pair Physical 128 8 178,000 Non-Pole Pair Side 128 12 178,500 Pole Pair Side 128 18 177,000 Non-Pole Pair Phantom 128 12 177,000 Non-Pole Pair Physical 104 8 175,500 Non-Pole Pair Side 104 12 177,000 Pole Pair Side 104 18 175,500 Non-Pole Pair Phantom 104 12 176,000 Notes: (1) All values are for dry weather conditions and 20Degrees C (2) All capacity values assume a line carrying 40 wires (3) DP (double petticoat) Insulators assumed for all 12" and 18" spaced wires - CS (Special Glass with Steel Pin) Insulators assumed for all 8" spaced wires. Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper. (God, how I hate waiting for those 20ms delays!) -don ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 11:30:50 PST From: nomdenet@venera.isi.edu > ... Does anyone know the propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, > or whatever else is used for long lines?? Yep: 0 km/sec. Sorry; I couldn't resist. A. R. White nomdenet @ ISI.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 22:50:54 PST From: "Robert P. Warnock" Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <3222@accuvax.nwu.edu> stv@qvax2.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes: +--------------- | Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better | than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you | dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money, | it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes". When you | do so, your call goes thru. When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell | pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent | deposit." You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL. This is the | same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not | working! +--------------- To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local", that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call. (Many, many "nearby" calls in the Bay Area are not "local".) In that case, you get a message like, "Please deposit 35 cents for the first three minutes." If you do, the call goes through. Why they can't do that for a *true* local call is a mystery indeed! 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY Date: 31 Jan 90 22:53:13 EST (Wed) From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." In article <3345@accuvax.nwu.edu> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 63, message 14 of 17 >When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that >uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on >the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells >him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call. Problem #2 with this: When this 'neat' thing calls my answering machine, as it has once already, it keeps on asking my answering machine whether it wishes to accept the call. In fact, the voice-response announcement got rather angry sounding when it continued to get no response from the answering machine! Although I like the idea of these automated things...and yes, they do have some interesting (though illegal I guess) side-effects of allowing free 'message' passing capability, I see an increasing problem with these automated devices clogging my answering machine to wazoo. The automated sleeze (sales) machines also do a number on the machine. An interesting thread to start here would be how the newer answering machines should detect such things? Should, perhaps, a certain amount of call type-code signals be sent on the line? Should automated answering devices send a code so that a sending device can see that they're also talking to a machine? Gil Kloepfer, Jr. ...!ames!limbic!gil | gil%limbic@ames.arc.nasa.gov ICUS Software Systems -- Western Development Center P.O. Box 1 Islip Terrace, NY 11752 ------------------------------ From: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request Date: 31 Jan 90 08:37:18 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Your problem could be at the receiving end of the FAX transmission. If the receiving FAX is looking for a Calling Tone ( a pulse that identifies itself to the other FAX) and there isn't one, it could assume the answer is voice. The opposite is true also. If YOUR machine wants a Calling Tone and doesn't get it, it could assume that it was a voice answer. --- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary Winters) Subject: Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use Reply-To: mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary Winters) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 21:20:48 GMT I, too, have trouble with people picking up the phone while I'm on the line with my modem. In the Winter 90 issue of the DAK catalog (on the back of the postage paid order envelope) is an ad for the "Phone Slasher". From the outside, it looks just like a standard RJ11 "Y" adapter (one plug, two jacks) like you can buy for $5 at Radio Shack, with the exception of two colored LEDs sticking out of the top. The ad copy claims that by plugging your phone into one side and your answering machine into the other, simply picking up your phone will cut the answering machine off completely. It also mentions that by plugging a modem into one side and the phone into the other, it will no longer be possible for someone to pick up an extension and screw up your modem communications. My questions on this device are these: Is it safe? Is it legal? Is it worth the $9.90 DAK is asking for it? All the circuitry fits comfortably into a space less than 1 inch square - it can't be too difficult or costly to make. Does anyone have a schematic for a similar device that they would be willing to share? Many thanks. ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., DFE, Santa Clara, CA. Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 16:26:44 GMT gordon@sneaky.tandy.com (Gordon Burditt) writes: [...] } Sigh. If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right: } Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance [...] } authorization would have to be provided on request by the customer in } the event of a dispute by the long-distance company as to whether they [...] I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't see how your proposal would do that. In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated records which *I* would be required to maintain. Something which is less than desirable. Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #67 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12448; 1 Feb 90 4:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01319; 1 Feb 90 2:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16527; 1 Feb 90 1:19 CST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 0:25:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #66 BCC: Message-ID: <9002010025.ab19225@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Feb 90 00:25:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Chris Johnson) Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (David Tamkin) Re: Sprint Stuff (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (David Daniel) Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Peter da Silva) Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Doug Claar) Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (John R. Levine) Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (John Cowan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) Date: 30 Jan 90 17:14:06 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN >[Moderator's Note: I think the 'one hour holding time' could be >explained thus: many of us sit on line to do our work. For example, I >am connected to a local dialup here for two hours each day minimum >while working on the Digest. And what of the numerous people who spend >their entire lives on Compuserve CB (or it would seem like it! :) )... >Data is data is data.....and there are far more casual BBS users and >modem chatters out there than you realize, staying on line for an hour >or more at a time. What I can communicate vocally in fifteen seconds >takes a minute or more of interactive chat to type, transmit and read >does it not? PT] Then the obvious thing to do is to charge by actual usage of equipment. Ho! What an idea! If hold times longer than XX minutes tend to put a bigger demand on the equipment, then charge more for them. I wouldn't object to a flat rate for as many calls as I like as long as they are less than 30 minutes or something, and then pay an incremental fee for longer periods. Or maybe just a larger flat rate to have unlimited connect/hold times, or pay a lower monthly phone rate to have my calls limited to 15 minutes, after which they automatically disconnect me. Or based on time of day. As someone mentioned, there is hardly a lack of facilities between 0000 and 0600, which is when most modem usage probably takes place. Even Compuserve CB is probably busier then than it is earlier in the day. It does not make any sense nor is it fair to charge more to modem users just because some/many of them have long holding times. Have you ever seen one end of a couple of pining separated lovers make a phone call? Hours. I even knew one woman in college who would call her boyfriend when she went to bed, talk for an hour, then fall asleep, having a "holding time" of all night. Like 8 hours. Hell, when I call home and talk to my family, it's usually over an hour and sometimes my brother and I can go on for a couple hours. Maybe we should charge higher rates to people who call their parents? It makes about as much sense as classing all modem users together. This sounds like the kind of assinine intelligence the insurance industry uses. And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene profits. As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are. But in the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10 most profitable corporation list, year after year? Uh huh -- all of the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc. Something is definitely fishy with that situation. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 23:21 CST From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX I quoted Joel Levin in Volume 10, Issue 25: JL> Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the JL> ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling JL> Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, JL> that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that JL> the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. I responded, in part: DT> There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice DT> and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy DT> has the carrier at fault. There is a new version out, part of a longer commercial where everyone else complains that the other carriers didn't save them any money, so they switched back. In this one, Mr. Laurance (I think it's Matthew, but it might be Mitchell: they are twins after all) was hired back to redo his own voice-over. He dials only once and, in the new narration, admits to the listening audience that it was his own mistake. The claim has changed from "other carriers misroute you" to "other carriers give you dialing instructions that are too difficult for our pea-brained heads." Again, he gets p.o.'ed because he has to wait for his next bill to arrive before he can request credit instead of having it done immediately. Poor thing has to *read* his phone bill when it comes, or he'll forget about requesting the credit. If he can't ask for it while it is fresh in his mind, he'll end up paying. (More carriers are offering immediate credit now, from what I've heard in their commercials and read in their ads.) The actor looks like Mitchell but sounds like Matthew. The whole campaign looks, sounds, and smells like bullsoup. 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: "Roy M. Silvernail" Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff Date: 31 Jan 90 01:57:26 GMT Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska In article <3266@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rsiatl!jgd@gatech.edu (John G. De Armond) writes: > The reason for this is simple. All Visa/MC/Amex type and the phone > company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a > published standard of checksuming the digits of the card. The last > digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits > algorithm. This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but > I don't have the specifics handy. This is interesting... a short time ago, I had the bad luck to transmit my calling-card number on a multi-line BBS here in Anchorage. Even though the chances of the other participants recognizing it was very small, I'm a security-concious kinda guy, so I immediately called Alascom to cancel my card. (as an aside, it took about 12 minutes and 3 supervisors to unearth the US-West 800 number I was to call. The 800 gave me a recording, and asked me to leave a message with the requisite CC data). The following Tuedsay (as this happened on Friday night), I got a call from Anchorage Telephone Utility, asking if I would like the card re-issued with a new PIN. I agreed, and my new card was sent out. The new card number is _exactly_ the same as the old one, save for the 4-digit PIN at the end. > Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs. We already > know that the last digit is computed. On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN > starts with a "2". Alaska PINs don't seem to start with '2', and both of my 4-digit PINs have different beginning digits. Does this mean that if I were to compute a 'logically correct' 14-digit CC number, I could slip it by the AOS sleazeballs? (not that I'm planning it, but.....:-) Roy M. Silvernail | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include ;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. | ------------------------------ From: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! Date: 31 Jan 90 08:53:45 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA The above attempt by the FCC is simply a rehash of Amendment to Part 69 of the Commision's Rules Relating to Enhanced Service Providers (Federal Register July 1987 Vol. 52 page 28317) authored by Ruth Milkman of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau, Tarrifs Division. The FCC granted a surcharge waiver to GTE to establish Telenet. Now the FCC wants their money and the above actions are how they feel it's best to go about it. I'm guessing that if enough screaming, gnashing of teeth and breast beating occurs, the FCC will get their money direct from GTE and then GTE will get a rate increase and life on Earth will continue as before. "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 22:12:47 GMT Note that AT&T is still allowed to perform call-blocking (and in fact does at LA International Airport (LAX)). When will this be changed? _--_|\ 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?" `-_-' ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:30:41 PST From: Doug Claar Well, I had my token unpleasant experience with a COCOT. Not remembering what the current law was like, I called the California PUC. They said that current state law required that motels and hotels MUST allow access to alternate long distance carriers; access from other phones to alternate carriers OR to 800 numbers was not currently required. There was a requirement (a tariff, I believe) that no payphone charge more than $.10 over PacBell intra-lata, and no more than $.10 over ATT inter-lata, in state. There is currently something before the commission to require "standardized" access from all payphones that would require access to alternate carriers and 800 numbers. I also talked to AT&T, and they said that if I couldn't dial 10288-0 to get to them, it was a blocking phone, and that was that. I'd really like to present the facts to the place where the COCOTs are. Does FCC order DA 89-237 override state setups? Is it really illegal to block access? (If so, why don't the state PUC and AT&T know about it?!?!?! Never mind, I don't want to know!) Thanks, Doug Claar ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 31 Jan 90 08:10:35 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <3342@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >In fact, you don't even have to use to the MCI ID (mailbox number). >You can use the Formal Name or Username as long as it's unique. > >[Moderator's Note: But that only works provided you are *certain* the >user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters >don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths. If you send a message to a name that isn't unique, the gateway will bounce it back to you, showing you in the bounce message all of the names and IDs that match the address that you gave. It's true, the only guaranteed way to send a message is to the seven digit user number (beats me why they pad it with zeros, maybe they're planning area codes) but user names are also reasonable, particularly for those of use whose user names are not the default first initial and last name. The implementation of the gateway is really excellent, my congratulations to whoever did it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl also johnl@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 15:52:59 GMT The Telecom Digest moderator writes: >[Using the full name when sending to mcimail.com] >only works provided you are *certain* the >user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters >don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths. >That's why the numerical address method is preferred. Take no chances, >and insure your mail gets to the right party. Actually, you do get this menu, in a funny kind of way. I sent mail to Steve_Manes@mcimail.com and got the following bounce message: From hombre!nri.reston.va.us!mmdf Wed Jan 24 08:22:38 1990 Return-Path: Received: by marob.masa.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id ; Wed, 24 Jan 90 08:22 EST Received: by hombre.MASA.COM (smail2.5) id AA00389; 24 Jan 90 08:19:48 EST (Wed) Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.3/3.05) id AA22079; Tue, 23 Jan 90 16:52:24 EST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 16:37:13 EST From: nri.reston.va.us!Postmaster Sender: nri.reston.va.us!mmdf Subject: MCI Mail rejected a message. To: marob.masa.com!cowan Message-Id: <9001231637.aa11701@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US> Status: R The following mail message could not be forwarded to MCI Mail for the following Recipients: To: Steve Manes MCI Mail stated the message could not be sent because: At least one problem with envelope 608 More than 1 MCI Mail user matches recipient information MCI ID Name Organization Location 258-3059 Steve Manes Magpie New York, NY 360-8470 Steve Manes PC Mag Column Seattle WA TO: Steve Manes EMS: MCI Mail MBX: Steve Manes 615 Message must include at least one TO: recipient Your message follows: [My message appeared here.] I then resent to the appropriate Steve Manes using the MCI ID, and all was well. BTW, the message took about three days to make it through the Internet side to MCI Mail. I don't have the details, unfortunately; does anybody know the response time of the gateway itself? How often does it poll MCI Mail? [Moderator's Note: There are about a dozen readers of TELECOM Digest who receive their copies through MCI Mail, and one with who I am personally acquainted (we've known each other for years) says his copies are always there in the morning, a few hours after they leave here each day. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #66 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14396; 1 Feb 90 5:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15335; 1 Feb 90 3:34 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01319; 1 Feb 90 2:29 CST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:55:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #68 BCC: Message-ID: <9002010155.ab00574@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:55:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson California Senate Passes Area Code Bill (Evan Eickmeyer via Mark R. Smith) British Telecom Dumps Mitel (Julian Macassey) Telco Advertising (John Higdon) Telephone Number Lengths in UK (Carl Moore) Sprint's Other Tenex Code (*Hobbit*) Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (Jesse W. Asher) Re: Caller ID in New Jersey (Louis J. Judice) Re: Caller ID (David Lewis) Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (David Tamkin) Special Issues This Weekend (TELECOM Moderator) Laughter is Good For You... (Ron Higgins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 18:05:04 EST From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" Originally appeared in misc.consumers, and passed to TELECOM Digest From eickmeye@alcor.usc.edu (Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer) Subject: CA Area Code Bill Date: 31 Jan 90 06:18:44 GMT Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, January 26, 1990, page B4. Senate Passes Bill Limiting Area Codes From A Times Staff Writer SACRAMENTO -- Prompted by complaints over a new area code for Los Angeles, legislation requiring telephone companies to respect city boundaries when new area codes are created was unanimously passed by the Senate on Thursday and sent to the Assembly. Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Energy and Public Utilities Committee, authored the legislation to force changes in the area covered by Los Angeles' proposed 310 area code. An aide to Rosenthal, Paul Fadelli, said the bill would not undo the 310 area code but it could alter the present configuration. The bill would require Pacific Bell and GTE-California to adhere as closely as technically possible to existing city boundaries when planning and implementing the new area code. As proposed now, the new area code would split such communities as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City, Bell Gardens, South Gate, Inglewood, the City of Commerce and Hawthorne. It is scheduled to take effect in 1992 and become Los Angeles' third area code. Rosenthal and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) deplored what they termed the disruptive imposition of the proposed area code. They said that neighbors living opposite each other on La Cienega Boulevard, for instance, would have different area codes and that confusion would occur for both local and long distance callers. If an entire city could not be included in a proposed new area code, the bill would require the telephone companies to consider an area's geography, "community of interests," cohesiveness, integrity and compactness of territory. Additionally, telephone companies would be required to notify their customers within a reasonable period of the proposed change. ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: British Telecom Dumps Mitel Date: 1 Feb 90 01:41:44 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. From The Economist January 27 1990: "British Telecom is selling its 51% stake in Mitel, the Canadian maker of computerised telephone switchboards. The most likely bidders are Japan's NEC and Fijitsu, Siemens, France's Alcatel and American Telephone and Telegraph." So now you have a definition for a PBX: computerized telephone switchboard. Will this leave AT&T as the only surviving US PBX manufacturer? Yours with an SX-5 still hanging on the wall, Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Subject: Telco Advertising Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 31 Jan 90 00:06:39 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Pac*Bell is currently involved in a saturation compaign to promote its Centrex. There are very expensive-looking television spots, radio spots, double-page newspaper ads, not to mention the direct mailings. This represents an unbeliveable amount of money. And for what purpose? To convince the public that they should forsake the interconnect industry and allow their kindly phone company to "provide it all". This is all very disturbing. In the old days, the utility was allowed to do "informational" or "institutional" advertising to get people to wait for the dial tone, or to dial correctly (hee-hee), or to not leave their phone off the hook. In many cases it was required that this advertising be paid for by stockholders rather than ratepayers. Now we have the mighty force of a giant public utility that is guaranteed a rate of return from customers that can't go anywhere else using its muscle to compete against an industry that itself requires the services of that utility. So now the ratepayers foot the campaign to compete against the equipment vendors. As if that wasn't enough, a frightening mechanism exists to pull shady and unscrupulous tricks to nudge customers over to Centrex. Since the company that is pushing Centrex is the same entity that supplies dialtone to all those vendor-provided phone systems out there, it might be just a little bit to someone's advantage to provide less than adequate service to those CPE customers. "Oh, they wouldn't do that", you say. They not only would; they do. I have several documented cases where Pac*Bell has had problem after problem with trunks to customers and causes are never really pinned down. What does happen, however, is that Pac*Bell personnel call the customer to "assure" him that the problem must be in his equipment, while acknowledging to the vendor that there is some CO problem that they "will look into". And then SURPRISE! Guess who shows up at the door? You got it--the Centrex salesperson. I have personally been called out to customers locations and have been able to vindicate the CPE. Meanwhile the trunk problems continue, the customer is told that "the phone company" isn't at fault, and the vendor is led down the garden path. A friend of mine in the interconnect business found out about Pac*Bell's "revisionism". One of his customers had trunks that wouldn't pull dialtone on an intermittant basis. After many days of on-site time and effort, it was determined that the problem was eleven originating registers out of spec for loop current. When these registers were repaired or replaced, the problems went away. Months later, when the customer was being beat upon by a Centrex salesperson, the 611 service records were trotted out. Somehow, magically, the bad CO ORs had turned into "trouble in the CPE". The customer, being somewhat knowledgeable, threw the Centrex person out. But how many people would be well enough informed to see through those tactics? I am steadfastly against using equipment (central office switch gear) simultaneously for regulated monopoly purposes and a competitive business, such as Centrex. There is no way the public's interests can be protected properly either by regulatory bodies or by the public itself. For the record, numerous letters have gone to the CPUC concerning this matter and I have yet to receive any intelligent response. That's probably asking too much. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 11:52:09 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK Uncertainty over the city code here; phone number copied from pay phone at Daventry service area (on motorway between Liverpool and London): (03272) 78284 (Elsewhere, I saw city code as 0327 and even as 032? 03272 seems to be indicated, for the length standardization.) I could not find a phone book for Gatwick, only for London. Pay phones at Gatwick (city code 0293); note the differing lengths: 34352 31633 (these two were in gate 17) 511453 512600 519582 22241 30250 30620 35295 512770 511452 519581 517907 17906 517905 517908 511641 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 00:20:17 EST From: *Hobbit* Subject: Sprint's Other Tenex Code Sprint has *long since* phased out 10777 here in central NJ. _H* ------------------------------ From: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? Date: 31 Jan 90 14:35:13 GMT Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" Organization: Dynasys: Consulting for the Future. I don't know much about phones, so I thought I post a message to see what I could find out. Here's the scenerio: I've got an internal modem without a speaker. I'd like to know when the modem is using the line without picking up the receiver to check (wouldn't want to do that, would we?). So, can anyone tell me how I can set it up so that I have a light or LED on when the modem has the line (of course it will be on when anyone's on line - I think)? This way I can tell exactly what is going on. I'd also like to know if there is anyway you could rig a setup so that lights can be displayed for an internal modem in the same manner as an external modem. I like to be able to see whats going on. Thanx in advance. Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Internet: jessea@dynasys.UUCP 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: uunet!dynasys!jessea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 06:56:49 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 31-Jan-1990 0954" Subject: Re: Caller ID in New Jersey Your local telephone business office has a list of CO's with Caller*ID and a list of when it will be available in the rest of the state. /ljj ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 31 Jan 90 16:48:17 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , well!rocke@ lll-crg.llnl.gov (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer > to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant > Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a > Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case; Whoa. There is no Bellcore-designed caller ID software; please don't go misquoting Elena Worrall (who, I believe, is the Bellcore witness to whom you're referring). Bellcore wrote generic requirements for Calling Number Delivery, as well as for the other CLASS (SM) features, including Calling Number Delivery Blocking. Software designed and developed by, among others, AT&T and NTI may or may not have the capability built in. (Offhand, I think they both do, but I wouldn't swear to it.) But we didn't design the software; we wrote generic requirements and other folks designed the software. Regarding the fact that the calling number can be delivered when calling a 900 number as well as an 800 number, I was unaware that anyone was offering this service. Technically it's clearly feasible; I wasn't aware that any IC was offering to do it, though. MCI, it should be noted, will be offering ("real soon now") in-band delivery of ANI. This essentially means that any call carried via MCI (or, by extension, by any IC who choses to implement the same technology and offer the same service) could result in the billing number being delivered to the called party. There is no current way to block this from the originating end. Explanation for the "no current way to block this..." statement: The billing number is sent by the originating local exchange carrier to the IC via Equal Access MF signaling. The originating LEC is obligated to send this information to the IC as part of the Equal Access arrangements; the caller can not specify that this not be sent to the IC because the IC would then have no billing information. Once the IC has the billing number, the calling party is out of the loop. It is technically feasible, I suppose, to add a special sequence to the MF signaling "protocol" meaning "caller requests billing number privacy", but that doesn't exist currently and it's not clear it would go over that well -- performance impacts and all that.} David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 10:43:05 CST Also sprach Tad Cook in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 64: | David Tamkin had an AMAZING story about trying to use MCI as a | secondary carrier, and all the problems he had with MCI, IL Bell, and | Centel when they kept assigning MCI as the primary carrier against his | wishes. You are easy to amaze, Mr. Cook; Illinois Bell did it only once and Centel didn't do it at all (though MCI asked them twice). | I am happy to report that we tried such as scheme with Sprint, and did | not have this kind of problem. Nor have I. US Sprint and Telecom*USA are each very amenable to having my parents' numbers and mine all on my account. (Telecom*USA is my 1+ carrier but 10XXX for my parents; the US Sprint account is 10XXX on all four phone numbers.) Only MCI have been troublemakers. Another response came in email. Bill Huttig, who I hope will not mind my repeating this, told me that after MCI did that to him once, he got his local BOC to flag his account not to accept any reaffiliation orders that come from carriers rather than from him. He suggested I ask Illinois Bell if they would mark my parents' account accordingly. I asked. They marked. MCI hasn't tried it again, so perhaps this extra caution will turn out superfluous in the long run. 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: Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:16:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues This Weekend More special reference issues are planned for this weekend. I have a prefix table for two Canadian area codes which will be distributed; and I have a revised and up to date Country Code Listing, for international calls. These will be distributed probably Friday night or sometime Saturday. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Ron Higgins Subject: Laughter is Good for You Date: 1 Feb 90 02:39:42 GMT Reply-To: Ron Higgins Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc. [From a cartoon. Publisher-Unknown Author-John Reed] Person #1: Boy! This Signaling System 7 - frequently known as common channel signaling 7 or CCITT #7, - debuted in 1980. Using up to 64 kbps links to interconnect stored program control switches, SS7 is the first truly digital signaling network. Its advent makes possible the use of special and general purpose computers and information data bases and brings a myriad of new network features and services to the public-switched network. Among SS7's key characteristics are true interactive out of band signaling, a feature rich protocol based on OSI standard mold, the capability to support a wide range of information services driven by network data bases and ISDN compatibility. Person #2: Yeah, but is it ground start or loop start? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #68 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20417; 2 Feb 90 0:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26375; 1 Feb 90 22:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13674; 1 Feb 90 21:36 CST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:47:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #69 BCC: Message-ID: <9002012047.ab12103@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:45:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: "Sleaze" (Carol Springs) Re: 64kb National Tariffs (Hank Nussbacher) Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Dana Paxson) Re: Computerized Collect Calls (William C. DenBesten) Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Bob Munck) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Owens) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (J. Philip Miller) Noms de Guerre (Steve Kass) Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Jim Shankland) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: "Sleaze" Date: 1 Feb 90 06:14:16 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In article <3310@accuvax.nwu.edu> HAMER@ruby.vcu.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes: >Another thread: C & P has a .50 (or .75?) per month charge to maintain >your inside wiring. I maintain my own inside wiring. It seems to me >that periodically, that charge reappears on my phone bill and I have >to call them up and tell them to take it off. I would call that >sleazy behavior -- they keep sticking on a charge for an optional >service that I don't want and I have to keep telling them to take it >off. At New England Telephone, the charge is $.45/month and is called Telesure-Basic. On a recent Saturday morning, I got a call from New England Telephone hyping a great new service called "Telesure-Plus." If I chose this wonder-option, then not only could I pay (some $ amount I quickly forgot) every month from now on, but I would be protected from getting billed $55/hour for service in my home if the problem turned out to be in my phone equipment rather than in the inside wiring. In addition, New England Telephone would lend me, "free of [additional] charge," a telephone to use in place of my faulty phone, until I could get around to getting the old phone repaired or replaced! Wow! Now, I realize that not everyone has spare phones around to check these things out, and that to some people the idea of borrowing a friend's phone is somehow inconceivable. Also, some folks probably just don't bother (even when cautioned to do so by the repair people themselves) and then get angry when they're hit with a huge bill for the service call. But "insurance" like this, by whatever name, is still gouging. I've had to call repair at New England Telephone a couple of times because of a dead line. The first time was after my second line was installed but never came up. The second time was a network problem, nothing to do with inside wiring (or, of course, my phone) at all--but I got the Telesure-Plus hype call a week or two after I'd reported the problem. Could be coincidence, I suppose. The real point is, the folks staffing the repair line *do* tell you to try another phone in the jack, and caution you that you'll be hit up for big bux if the problem turns out to be in the phone. Offering insurance against an easily-checkable possibility contributes to the illusion that customers are helpless and must be protected from the exorbitant expenses that can arise from their own telephobias. And how does one protect against large expenses? With a little bit every month, of course. (Please don't bother telling me that I'm probably wasting my money on the $.45/mo. Telesure-Basic, or basic inside wire maintenance, that I mentioned. I knew that even when I signed up for it.) Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Feb 90 15:09:27 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: 64kb National Tariffs In article <3177@accuvax.nwu.edu> HANK@barilvm.bitnet (Hank Nussbacher) writes: >> Country 5km 10km 50km 200km 500km >> ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+ > ..... >> Switzerland | 758.8 | 1523.5 | 1739 | 6604.4 | 8810.3 | Simon Poole responded: >These numbers seem to be rather wrong (ignoring the 500km bit, which >is a joke). According to my copy of the Swiss PTT tariffs the numbers >would be more like: > 820 920 2460 3901 Thanks for correcting the numbers but I hope you noticed that my numbers were based on documents from Dec 1987 and the Eurodata Handbook from 1987-1988. Tariffs have a tendency to change over time and it appears that in Switzerland the prices have changed somewhat. Hank Nussbacher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 10:36:34 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) Chris Johnson writes: > And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing > telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene > profits. As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to > insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary > for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be > the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are. But in > the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin, > Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10 > most profitable corporation list, year after year? Uh huh -- all of > the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc. > Something is definitely fishy with that situation. If you put $100 million on deposit in a bank and only earned $ 1 million per year in interest, you would think that was a lousy deal. After all, you should get more than 1% interest on your money. Yet someone else might say "a million dollars a year is plenty of income for anyone -- you don't 'deserve' to earn any more." U.S. West -- which serves the "upper Midwest" -- has at least $20 billion of invested capital in telephone plant. If you want investors to continue to put up money, you have to "pay" them at least what they can earn in comparable investments, or about $2 - 2.5 billion per year. The total amount of profits is not the right measure of whether the phone companies are earning too much: it's the rate of return on the invested capital which you want to look at. I don't know what U.S. West's rate of return is, and I won't defend it, but it's absurd to say any company is earning "too much" money simply by looking at their total profits. You can't tell whether it's too much until you look at how much the investors had to put up in order to earn those profits. Typical utility profits are 12 - 14% return on equity. Microsoft makes at least twice that, and IBM traditionally has earned 19-20%. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 08:51:22 EST From: Dana Paxson Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Reply-To: dwp@cci632.uucp Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY On the subject of phone credit cards/calling cards: Why is the PIN emblazoned on the AT&T calling card, right there for everyone to see? I've worked on computer password management, and one thing my cohorts and I kept telling people was: Don't put your password in a visible place in written form. I've used bank cards at ATMs, and the banks I have cards for have been uniform in their refusal to put the PIN on the card. But I use the phone card, and Lo! there is my complete access authentication, for anyone to read over my shoulder, or use if the card is found lying somewhere. Bad enough it is, that the PIN is so short and so structured (see the recent articles on this subject); but why make matters worse by displaying it? BTW, I once got two bank ATM cards from two different banks, having two different account numbers -- but the identical four-digit PIN! I speculated that maybe the banks bought the passwords (or the algorithm) from the same guy ... My input: Get the PINs off the cards. If people can't deal with that, they can't deal with bank ATMs either. Furthermore, don't put the PINs IN the cards (magnetically) either. For secure communications, the data channel and the authentication channel should be separate. Dana Paxson Systems Architecture Disclaimer: the opinions expressed above are my very own. ------------------------------ From: "William C. DenBesten" Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls Date: 1 Feb 90 18:25:48 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. In article <3345@accuvax.nwu.edu> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes: > When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that > uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on > the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells > him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call. From article <3399@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by think!ames!limbic.UUCP!gil@eddie. mit.edu (Gil Kloepfer Jr.): > Problem #2 with this: When this 'neat' thing calls my answering > machine, as it has once already, it keeps on asking my answering > machine whether it wishes to accept the call. How about a message on your answering machine similar to: There is NO one able to take your call... Maybe it will pick up on the NO. ------------------------------ Reply-To: munck@mwunix.mitre.org Subject: Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report Date: Thu, 01 Feb 90 13:43:02 -0500 From: Bob Munck From Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 59 and Risks Digest: 9.63 > Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network > problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program. > ... > While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory > environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of > events that led to this problem couldn't be predicted. ^^^^^^^^ ^^ Don't they mean "wasn't"? The rest of the report seems (to me) to be reasonably detailed, well explained, and apparently honest, but this one little dissemblance ruins the whole thing. Is there any justification for the assertion that the prediction was (and is) _impossible_ in these circumstances? -- Bob Munck, MITRE Corporation, McLean VA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 1 Feb 90 09:23:17 EST (Thu) From: John Owens These messages about non-published number charges remind me of how silly it is that I'm charged extra for a second listing. I have two phone lines, and two listings, one for myself, and one for my wife (who has a different last name). If I had each name listed with a different number, there would be no extra charge, but since I needed both names with the same number, I'm charged extra. At least, as mentioned here in other messages, I don't get charged for the second line being unlisted as well! John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 1 Feb 90 18:10:21 GMT Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" Organization: Washington University (St. Louis) >.... Police/Fire and other emergency service agencies can short-cut >this *somewhat* by calling direct to their contact at telco; but even >then, only selected executives at these agencies know *who* and >*where* to call at telco; that information is available only on a >'need-to-know' basis. Most Bell telcos are very dedicated to >protecting the privacy of their subscribers who have requested it. PT] I was under the impression that for some 911 services, that there was a direct connection of the calling phone number with a database which immediately provided the address of that phone. I had assumed that the content of that database came from the phone company. In fact, in an area like St. Louis, with almost 100 different cities in the city/county 911 area, this type of database is necessary in order to know how to route the incoming phone call. Thus it appears to me that the information is [at least in theory] readily available for the Police/Fire folk. Can someone in the know describe how this works in greater detail? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil-UUCP (314) 362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet [Moderator's Note: Under E-911 service (the 'E' means enhanced), the name, address and telephone number of the caller are available to the emergency services dispatcher on a terminal in most cases. Coin phones are indicated as such. Calls passed by the operator do not display the information, but the operator is supposed to stay on the line and pass calling number verbally to the dispatcher. But this information only shows up on *incoming* calls. If the emergency services dispatcher needs to locate someone for an *outgoing* call, it becomes a bit harder. For example, the store catches on fire at 2:00 AM....the owner has to be called at home; but his number is non-pub. Another example: you are taken to the hospital in an emergency; the identification in your purse says to call a relative (by name, but no number), and the number is non-pub. Telco will pass messages like this in an effort to help. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:15 EDT From: SKASS@beta Subject: Noms de Guerre julian macassey writes: > If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great > unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful > solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the > telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or > Jim Bakker. For free they will also not put in a street address. Not > only is this free, but now you can tell those really important people > how to reach you. You say: "I am listed as Ivan Boesky". So if they > are out for the evening and have left their Filofax in the Mercedes, > they can call Information and ask for Ivan Boesky. Seriously, will the telco do this for you? About 10 years ago, my roommate and I tried to get a listing as "A" with no address. We wanted to be able to give our number as "the first number in the phone book." We were refused because we were unable to produce a piece of identification with that name on it. The last time I visited Madison, WI, I noticed that there were dozens of listings for "A" with no address. What's the law say about this? Does anyone in Madison want to call "A" and investigate? Steve Kass [skass@drew.bitnet, 2014083614, 2015141187] Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Drew University Madison, NJ 07940 "An amount in this box means the fishing boat operator considers you self-employed." Reproduced without permission from my Form 1099. [Moderator's Note: Business subscribers have more flexibility in their choice of listings than residence subscribers. The listings you are referring to are invariably business subscribers. And the only guarentee of A with no street address being first is if the telephone number printed is (when taken as a whole number) of lesser value than some other subscriber who wants to be listed the same way. In other words, A (no address) ...221-0001 would be listed ahead of A (no address) with 997-9000 as the phone number. The final entry for many years in Chicago has been "Zzyzx, Isidore R. genl merchandise, 1706 S. Halsted, 942-1695" PT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Shankland Subject: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre Date: 1 Feb 90 18:36:23 GMT Reply-To: Jim Shankland Organization: The Eddie Group In article <3360@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: > If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great >unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful >solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the >telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or >Jim Bakker.... Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first for both): Wheldone Rumproast IV Wong Numba jas ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #69 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26687; 2 Feb 90 3:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26105; 2 Feb 90 1:48 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08249; 2 Feb 90 0:42 CST Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:14:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #70 BCC: Message-ID: <9002020014.ab30877@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Feb 90 00:14:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson PSI Signs Agreement With RCI (John Eldredge via Henry Mensch) AOSs, the Carey Saga, and the Like (Will Martin) Call Waiting Question (Jeff Wasilko) Calling Card Numbers (was Re: Sprint Stuff) (John G. De Armond) Fax Group IV (Danny Wilson) Need Correlation of (Zip or Area Code) to Local Sales Tax (David McKallip) How To Dial Locally (John R. Levine) Satellite Conferences (Janos Posfai) On Learning That a Number is Unlisted (Carl Moore) 301-950 Exchange (Velu Sinha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 17:22:44 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: PSI Signs Agreement With RCI Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 09:52:27 -0500 > From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge) > To: nysernet@nisc.nyser.net > Subject: PRESS RELEASE > Cc: jte@psi.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Martin L. Schoffstall Vice President Performance Systems International, Inc. P.O. Box 3850 Reston, VA 22091 703.620.6651 info@psi.com PSI ANNOUNCES NEW, STRATEGIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGREEMENT WITH RCI Reston, VA, February 1, 1990 - The signing of a five-year contract detailing a strategic business relationship between Performance Systems International, Inc. (PSI), a value-added computer network service provider, and Rochester Communications Incorporated (RCI), a telecommunications facility provider, was announced today. This pact incorporates T1 (1.544Mbps) circuit delivery by RCI for PSI throughout the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states. This agreement represents the second major telecommunications vendor with a special working relationship with PSI to provide major portions of the backbone for PSI's CAPNet(SM) and NYSERNet(SM) networks. This agreement differs from the relationship PSI has with a larger number of vendors offering circuits alone. Through this accord, customers of the PSI backbone will benefit by enhanced reliability produced through redundant telecommunications service providers. An important aspect of this new contract is the co-location of PSI data communications equipment in the RCI points of presence (POP's) throughout much of PSI's current service areas, such as Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C. PSI customers will see the immediate advantages of more serviceable core network equipment and reduced costs for maintaining the backbone infrastructure. Martin Schoffstall, Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer for PSI commented, "This is a major step toward the reliable expansion of the CAPNet(SM) and NYSERNet(SM) systems. Our customers will enjoy immediate advantages, such as greater serviceability, economy and technologies such as Extended Super Frame (ESF) network management to insure greater reliability. At the same time, we better position ourselves to support imminent needs, such as T3 and fiber data transmission facilities." Services currently provided by PSI include their "Standard Connection Service," integrating customer Local Area Networks (LAN's) into the PSI wide area networks (WANs). This premier service puts organizations in touch with millions of other individual users from thousands of sites globally taking advantage of interactive network applications, such as transferring files and remotely accessing distant computers. PSI also offers "Host Mail" and "USENET/NEWS" services for entry level electronic business communications. In addition, PSI customers have grown increasingly dependent on individual "Dialup Services" to the PSI networks and "WhitePages Directories" to locate other network users. PSI's corporate offices are located in Reston, Virginia. PSI network operations is centered in their Albany, New York facility. - 30 - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 9:51:51 CST From: Will Martin Subject: AOSs, the Carey Saga, and the Like Perhaps the solution to the myriad AOS problems that have been discussed here is to give the general populace some direct encouragement to act against AOSs that violate the regs. The IRS seems to have been successful in getting individuals to report other people and companies for tax fraud, by paying the tipster a percentage of the gains from the successful imposition of fines, penalties, and back taxes. What is needed is for the FCC to both begin more vigorously imposing fines on AOS companies that violate the regulations, without giving them long leadtimes to correct reported violations (they've been given enough grace periods by now; they ought to know the rules if they are in the business!), and to also pay a percentage of that fine to the individuals who report the violations. Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 18:57:53 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Call Waiting Question I am trying to find out how call waiting will affect a MNP class 5 reliable connection. What I am trying to do is set up call forward-on-busy to my cellular number from my landline number (by manually forwarding calls to my cellular number before making a data call), so that when I am on the modem for extended periods of time I can still receive calls. After calling Rochester Telephone (lack of) Customer Service, I am told that call forwarding will only forward a call when the line rings. If the line is busy, the caller will receive a busy signal. Their solution is for me to get call waiting, so that the caller will not receive a busy signal. I am concerned that the call-waiting beep may drop my connection even though it is a reliable connection. Note: This is a better alternative for me than getting a second line installed since I work for Cellular One and get all my local airtime free :-). RochTel doesn't offer forward on busy or residential centrex, and hunting to a cellular number isn't possible. Note 2: Our rates in Rochester are probably the lowest in the country: $10/month, .175/min for peak periods. (-: (-: Jeff | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. | [Moderator's Note: I *think* the rep led you astray. I have call forwarding on a line which does not have call waiting. When the line is free, a forwarded call is signaled with a single ring. When the line is busy, the call simply forwards. What the rep may have meant was only one call can forward at a time (true in some CO's). If the line is busy (becase a call is presently forwarded through it elsewhere), then subsequent calls will receive a busy. I think you should double check this yourself with a confederate and a second phone line. While the line is on forwarding and busy with an *outgoing* call, have the confederate dial it and see what happens, etc. I think the rep also led you astray telling you you had to have call waiting to make it work: how could you possibly have a phone forwarding and still get a call waiting signal at the same time? PT] ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Calling Card Numbers (was Re: Sprint Stuff) Date: 1 Feb 90 19:45:17 GMT Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article <3386@accuvax.nwu.edu> comcon!roy@uunet.uu.net (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >> Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs. We already >> know that the last digit is computed. On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN >> starts with a "2". >Alaska PINs don't seem to start with '2', and both of my 4-digit PINs >have different beginning digits. I've gotten several comments on this subject. My comments regarding the pin starting with "2" is as a result of looking at perhaps 50,000 transactions in the 1988 timeframe. The AOS I was contracted to served primarily Georgia and Tennessee. The overwhelming majority of pins from this area started with "2". I'd like to think that the fact that peoples' pins are different now means that someone woke up and realized the exposure. >Does this mean that if I were to compute a 'logically correct' >14-digit CC number, I could slip it by the AOS sleazeballs? (not that >I'm planning it, but.....:-) Yep, sure does. At least with the AOS operators I'm familiar with, they do NOT rent a subscriber database from a carrier or access it. The trick that some have used of placing a test call to AT&T is now clearly not permitted so the algorithm verification is probably all they do. John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress- Radiation Systems, Inc. | men than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. emory!rsiatl!jgd | - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA** ------------------------------ From: Danny Wilson Subject: Fax Group IV Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd. Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 20:36:39 GMT >From: well!slf@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Sharon Lynne Fisher) >Can anybody point me to people who can talk to me about fax Group IV >specs and how they differ from Group III? >Also, I'd be interested in pointers to any other "new and nifty >things" under development for fax technology. Since IDACOM is now developing a comprehensive test bed for doing Conformance Testing for all layers of the GIV Fax protocol, there are several people in our organization that know about this. Also, Ricoh, Canon, and Panasonic are all using our equipment for the development of their new GIV fax machines (I've seen them), so I hope that we can help you out. Danny Wilson danny@idacom.uucp IDACOM Electronics alberta!idacom!danny Edmonton, Alberta X.400 danny@idacom.cs.ubc.cdn C A N A D A Voice +1 403 462 4545 ------------------------------ From: David McKallip Subject: Need Correlation of (Zip or Area Code) to Local Sales Tax Date: 1 Feb 90 12:05:16 GMT Reply-To: David McKallip Please help. I am trying to find something that will tell me the local sales tax of an area (total of state,county,city) if I can supply area code and/or zip code. Any suggestions for ways to obtain this info are greatly appreciated. This is my first posting from this account so if mail bounces I can be reached at 512-250-3600 (if no answer, leave message at 250-2083). Dave McKallip My employer doesn't know I exist, so how Internet: dave@walt.cc.utexas.edu could I have an opinion? ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 23:07:51 GMT Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Re complaints about whether you put in the money before or after you dial: It is a local call from West Lebanon NH to Woodstock VT, even though they are in different states and different LATAs. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are each one NPA and one LATA, very tidy. So I was at the mall in West Leb and I wanted to call my wife in Woodstock. I discovered that if I just dial the local number 457-xxxx, I have to deposit a dime first. (Seven digit local dialing is universal, none of the NPAs are very full.) On the other hand, if I dial 1-802-457-xxxx, it gives me back the dime if I deposited one, the nice lady asks me to "please ... deposit ... ten ... cents," and when I do so, thanks me for using AT&T. Now that's confusing. Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates otherwise. The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the first decent COCOT ever. 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." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 17:41:22 EST From: posfai%CSHLAB.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: Satellite Conferences I would like to learn about satellite television courses and conferences in the following areas: general science, molecular biology, biotechnology, computational biology, neurobiology, neural nets, artificial intelligence. What programs exist in Europe? What are the access rights? What are the technical requirements to hook to such programs? Have the regular dishes this capability? Is somewhere an address or a node to mail to, or a phone number to call? TV Guide is not good. Thanks in advance for any advice. Janos Posfai ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 10:00:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted Somebody wrote: >> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the >> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, >> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he >> can't find it either. Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get it; it is not available, period. [Moderator's Note: Not only that, but over sixty years ago, the cover of the Chicago Telephone Company (predecessor of IBT) alphabetical directory printed this admonition to subscribers: "We ask that our subscribers extend the same courteous speech to our operators that they wish to hear in return. Our operators are not required by the Company to remain connected with, or listen to a subscriber who uses profane language in addressing them." Like what is it 'they' say? Trying to bail out the ocean using a one gallon bucket..... Operators are terribly mistreated by some crude, belligerent customers. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 08:58:04 -0500 From: Velu Sinha Subject: 301-950 Exchange C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" message when dialing 1+10 digits). I checked with the operator and she told me that the number was flagged in their system as being some sort of virtual number, and that apparently lots of people were having trouble reaching the exchange. The operator could not dial the call for me, as all 950 numbers dialed from her console flag into different access codes (?)! She said that she had standing instruction to connect me to repair ... she did, and they've started looking into the problem ... but they don't seem to know that a 950 even exists! I called up the DA people again (the folks who I got the number from in the first place!), and told them that the number they gave me was unreachable, could I please get MVA old 800 number (which use to be valid state wide) ... she refused, saying that they only had one listing for MVA now, and it was valid all over the state ... the 950 number! Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682. If you get through, perhaps you can ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !! These folks really should check the numbers before they give them to the DA folks to give out! The DA folks are rarely particularly swift, and at tens of cents per call, regardless if the number they give you is correct or not, the charges add up! - Velu ps. Anyone know what this 950 service for MVA really does? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #70 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28550; 2 Feb 90 4:32 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00557; 2 Feb 90 2:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26105; 2 Feb 90 1:48 CST Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 1:36:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #71 BCC: Message-ID: <9002020136.ab21784@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Feb 90 01:35:14 CST Volume 10 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson A Letter From the Chairman (Robert E. Allen, via TELECOM Moderator) Things.. (Mark Earle) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Peter da Silva) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Jeff Woolsey) Revised Country Code List (Chris Johnston) New Archives Exhibits (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:37:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Letter From the Chairman Some time back, a discussion in the Digest centered around the difficulty encountered when placing international calls to difficult to reach places such as India and other mid-east countries. Messages included comments about the methods by which AT&T operators handled the calls and responded to customer inquiries. Those messages were brought to the personal attention of Robert E. Allen, Chairman of the Board of American Telephone & Telegraph Company. In a personal letter to me, dated January 15, Mr. Allen discussed the problems described in the articles which appeared in the Digest. His letter to me, via US Mail, follows: January 15, 1990 Mr. Patrick A. Townson Post Office Box 1570 Chicago, IL 60690-1570 Dear Mr. Townson: The articles appearing in TELECOM Digest concerning AT&T operator handling of International Directory Assistance was brought to my attention. I would like to respond personally and apologize for the difficulties you have experienced. I want to assure you that we have addressed the problems you described and are confident that the service you receive in the future will meet the professional standards you expect. However, should an occassion ever arise when you encounter difficulties attempting to place international calls after hours, please call 412-227-7333, collect if you wish, and request the supervisor. This will enable us to assist you immediatly and ensure that you continue to receive the quality of service to which we at AT&T are dedicated. We appreciate the time you spent to bring your concerns forward and will strive very diligently to restore your confidence in AT&T. Sincerely, R. E. Allen AT&T 550 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-644-1000 ============================================================================ My thanks to Mr. Allen for writing, and sharing his thoughts with us. I hope we will hear from him regularly. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:06:22 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Things.. A Digest poster wondered about 1-700-555-4141. I dialed it from here (Southwestern Bell) and got: ..."thank you for choosing Metromedia. Your service is now activated". This implies that just by dialing that number, I now had Metromedia/LDS (note they *are* my default 1+ carrier on this line). I then tried 10288-1-700-555-4141. An AT&T recording (much nicer audio quality than LDS) thanked me for choosing AT&T Long Distance. Again, the implication was that I've somehow managed to select something new. I didn't try other 10xxx codes, but apparently HERE it at least is useful to find out which 10xxx does what. Hmmm, I may try it some Saturday, and see, if I don't get billed for each call, how many of the recent 10xxx in the Digest work from here. Also: Someone asked what different folks pay for basic services. Here's mine: (note-2 lines, residential, first listed, second unlisted, at no cost, as per tariff). These amounts are for *both* lines, this is how it comes on my bill). Monthly charge Jan 07 thru Feb 06 20.70 US tax .84 St/loc tax 1.96 for a total of 23.50. Special municipal charge .42 FCC approved customer line charge 7.00 911 service fee 1.00 (it notes that 911 is not yet avail in my area, even though it is!) The total, 28.12 is subject to sales tax, which is .83 (we have a 7.125% state sales tax) Aparently this is on top of the St/loc tax of 1.96 above. Weird, huh?! I enjoy telecom immensely -- guess I'm more than casually interested in the phone network/system...as a professional I do computer hardware/software, pc to mainframe level (75% hardware 10% software rest misc.) and am just getting into Unix/Xenix from a user/administrator viewpoint .. anyhow, keep up the good work and I'll keep on reading....... Mark Earle [Moderator's Note: Thank you for writing. Keep on reading, and writing. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 19:51:59 GMT > "Yes, I want to order a telephone line for my son 'Data' -- named him > for the guy on the TV show." Well, in Houston at least such shenanigans seem to be unnecessary. I just called SWBell and spoke to the service-entity: Me: "can I change the name my number is listed under?" SWB: "Yes, but it won't show up until the next phone book. We can change directory assistance now if you like." Me: "Is there any restriction on the name: does it have to match my billing name?" SWB: "No." Me: "Is there any charge for this service?" SWB: "No." Me: "Can I get a list of alternative long-distance carriers and 10xxx access codes?" SWB: "If you give me your phone number we will mail it to your address" Me: "Is there any charge for this service?" SWB: "No, but there is a $5 charge for changing your LD carrier" Me: "Why isn't this information listed in the phone book?" SWB: "The available carriers vary too much at different exchanges" I declined to comment further on that. _--_|\ 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: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Date: 2 Feb 90 04:56:09 GMT Organization: NetCom I saw an article in the SF Chronicle (from the NYT, I think) on January 31, about how IBM and Motorola are joining forces to promote digital radio for remote data access for field personnel. A few paragraphs into the article (on the back page of the section in the Chron), the amazing statement is made that (paraphrasing) "radio waves can penetrate into buildings where cellular telephone waves cannot". I kid you not. I wish I were. Jeff Woolsey Microtec Research, Inc +1 408 980-1300 ...!apple!netcom!woolsey ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey [Moderator's Note: I've never really expected a lot from the {San Fransisco Chronicle} in the way of accuracy, but I'm amazed my competitor, the {New York Times}, would have let that get past them. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 18:28:39 199 From: Chris Johnston Subject: Revised Country Code List [Moderator's Note: I was going to run this as a special edition this weekend, but there was enough space left over in this issue that I decided to send it through normal distribution. If you save it, please delete *last year's* version, and substitute this one. PT] Patrick, Here is an updated version of the country code list submitted to Telecom Digest last year by Mike Grant. I've checked it against AT&T's International Telecommunications booklet, MCI's wallet card, and some other sources I found. cj From: mgrant@cos.com (Michael Grant) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 16:32:16 EDT Here you go. I haven't really updated it since last year, but I don't think much has changed. Some eastern-block countries were added, but I don't know their codes yet. When I say grepable, I mean that all things concerning a country are on a single line. I have a program which parses this file and breaks things up into the way I think I posted it to telecom, but it's real messy, so I hesatate to give out because I don't really want to support it if it breaks. A * means no city-code required. All-Points xx, means that you have to use the city-code xx for everywhere in that country. The + is just the way people have been writing int'l numbers. In this country it expands to 011-. I hope this is what you're looking for. If you find any errors or know any more, please let me know. -Mike The format for an int'l phone number is + country-code city-code local-number The + is just the way people have been writing int'l numbers. In the USA + expands to 011. In much of Europe + expands to 00. in UK 010, France 19 wait for dial tone, etc. When dialing into many European countries you must strip the leading zero from the city-code. A * means no city-code required. All-Points xx, means that you have to use the city-code xx for everywhere in that country. Algeria +213; All Points * American Samoa +684; All Points * Andorra +33; All cities 628 Anguilla +1; All Points 809 Antigua +1; All Points 809 Argentina +54; Buenos Aires 1; Cordoba 51 Aruba +297; All Points * Ascension Island +247; All Points * Australia +61; Melborne 3; Perth 9; Sydney 2 Austria +43; Vienna 222 Bahamas +1; All Points 809 Bahrain +973; All Points * Bangladesh +880 Barbados +1; All Points 809 Belgium +32 Belize +501; Belize City * Benin +229; All Points * Bermuda +1; All Points 809 Bolivia +591; La Paz 2; Santa Cruze 33; Botswana +267 Brazil +55; Rio de Janeiro 21; Sao Paulo 11 British Virgin Islands +1; All Points 809 Brunei +673 Bulgaria +359 Burma None? Cameroon +237; All Points * Canada +1; Then Area Code and number Cape Verdi +238; All Points * Cayman Islands +1; All Points 809 Chile +56; Santiago 2; Valparaiso 32 China +86 Colombia +57; Bogota 1; Cali 23 Congo +242 Costa Rica +506; All Points * Cuba +53 Cyprus +357; Nicosia 21 Czechoslovakia +42; Ostrava 69; Prague 2 Denmark +45; Aalborg 8; Aarhus 6; Copenhagen 1,2 Dominica +1; All Points 809 Dominican Republic +1; All Points 809 Ecuador +593; Cuenca 7; Guayaquil 4 Egypt +20; Alexandria 3; Cairo 2 El Salvador +503; All Points * England +44 Ethiopia +251; Addis Ababa 1; Awassa 6 Faeroe Islands (MCI) +45 Faeroe Islands (AT&T) +298 Fiji +679 Finland +358; Helsinki 0 France +33; Marseille 91; Nice 93; Paris 1 French Antilles +596; All Points * (Martinique,St.Barthelemy,St.Martin) French Guiana +594; All Points * French Polynesia +689; All Points * Gabon +241; All Points * Gambia +220; All Points * Germany (East) +37; Berlin 2; Leipzig 41 Germany (West) +49; Berlin 30; Munich 89 Ghana +233 Gibraltar +350; All Points * Greece +30; Athens 1 Greenland +299 Grenada +1; All Points 809 Guadaloupe +590; All Points * Guam +671; All Points * Guantanamo Bay +53; All Points 99 Guatemala +502; Antigua 9; Guatemala City 2 Guinea +224 Guyana +592; Georgetown 2 Haiti +509; Port Au Prince 1 Honduras +504; All Points * Hong Kong +852; Hong Kong 5 Hungary +36; Budapest 1; Gyor 96 Iceland +354; Reykjavik 1 India +91; Bombay 22; Calcutta 33; New Delhi 11 Indonesia +62; Jakarta 21 Iran +98; Teheran 21 Iraq +964; Baghdad 1 Ireland +353; Dublin 1; Waterford 51 Israel +972; Jerusalem 2; Tel Aviv 3 Italy +39; Florence 55; Naples 81; Rome 6 Ivory Coast +225; All Points * Jamaica +1; All Points 809 Japan +81; Kyoto 75; Tokyo 3; Yokohama 45 Jordan +962; Amman 6; Irbib 2 Kenya +254; Mombasa 11; Nairobi 2 Kiribati +686 Korea (South?) +82; Pusan 51; Seoul 2 Kuwait +965; All Points * Lebanon None? Lesotho +266; Leribe 3; Roma 21 Liberia +231; All Points * Libya +218; Tripoli 21 Liechtenstein +41; All Points 75 Luxembourg +352; All Points * Macao +853; All Points * Malawi +265 Malaysia +60; Kuala Lumpur 3 Maldives +960 Malta +356; All Points * Marshall Islands +692 Mauritius +230 Mexico +52; Mexico City 5; Tijuana 66 Mexico (Mexico City) +1 905 (USA only) Mexico (Tijuana) +1 706 (USA only) Micronesia +691 Miquelon +508 Monaco +33; All Points 93 Montserrat +1; All Points 809 Morocco +212; Casablanca *; El Jadida 34 Namibia +264; Grootfontein 673; Nauru +674 Nepal +977; All Points * Netherlands +31; Amsterdam 20; The Hague 70 Netherlands (Antilles) +599; Aruba 8; Curacao 9; Sint Maarten 5 Nevis +1; All Points 809 New Caledonia +687; All Points * New Zealand +64; Auckland 9 Nicaragua +505; Managua 2 Niger Republic +227; All Points * Nigeria +234; Lagos 1 North America +1 (Includes Canada, Caribbean, and United States) Northern Ireland +44 Norway +47; Bergen 5; Oslo 2 Oman +968; All Points * Pakistan +92; Islamabad 51 Panama +507; All Points * Papua New Guinea +675; All Points * Paraguay +595; Asuncion 21 Peru +51; Arequipa 54; Lima 14 Phillippines +63; Manila 2 Poland +48; Gdansk 58; Warsaw 22 Portugal +351; Lisbon 1 Puerto Rico +1; All Points 809 Qatar +974; All Points * Romania +40; Burcharest 0 Rwanda +250 Saint Kitts +1; All Points 809 Saint Lucia +1; All Points 809 Saint Pierre +508; All Points * Saint Vincent +1; All Points 809 Saipan +670 San Marino +39; All Points 549 Saudi Arabia +966; Riyadh 1 Scotland +44 Senegal +221; All Points * Seychelles Islands +248 Ships at Sea +871; Atlantic Ocean Ships at Sea +872; Pacific Ocean Ships at Sea +873; Indian Ocean Singapore +65; All Points * South Africa +27; Cape Town 21; Johannesburg 11 Spain +34; Barcelona 3; Madrid 1 Sri Lanka +94; Kandy 8 Suriname +597 Swaziland +268 Sweden +46; Stockholm 8 Switzerland +41; Berne 31; Burgdorf 34; Geneva 22; Zurich 1; Syria None? Tahiti (Fr. Polynesia) +689 Taiwan +886; Tainan 6; Taipei 2 Tanzania +255; Dar Es Salaam 51; Tanga 53 Thailand +66; Bangkok 2 Togo +228; All Points * Tonga +676 Trinidad & Tobago +1; All Points 809 Tunisia +216; Tunis 1 Turkey +90; Istanbul 1; Ismir 51 Turks & Caicos +1; All Points 809 Uganda +256; Entebbe 42 United Arab Emirates +971; Abu Dhabi 2; Ajman 6 United Kingdom +44; Belfast 232; Glasgow 41; London 1 United States +1; then Area Code and number USSR +7; Uruguay +598; Montevideo 2 Vatican City +39; All Points 6 Venezuela +58; Caracas 2; Valencia 41 Wales +44 Yemen Arab Republic +967; Taiz 4 Yugoslavia +38; Belgrad 11; Sarajevo 71 Zaire +243 Zambia +260; Zimbabwe +263; Mutare 20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:53:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Archives Exhibits Two recent additions to Telecom Archives -- 1. "High Performance Computing and Networking" -- a background paper from the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Steve Cisler kindly sent along Chapter 3 (Networking) which he prepared with an optical scanner. 2. "Ontario Area Codes/Exchange Names List" -- several files are devoted to a correlation between exchanges and geographic names in Ontario. The files are named 'npa.xxx.exchanges', where xxx is the area code in Ontario. These files were sent in by Woody . When I first thought Woody was going to send *one* area code file, I intended to run it as a special edition. When he sent several, for the various area codes in Ontario, I simply moved them to the archives. The report submitted by Steve Cisler is over 60,000 bytes -- far too long for inclusion in a digest or multiple digests. My thanks to both. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #71 *****************************   Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 21:26:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #72 Message-ID: <9002022126.aa04127@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Feb 90 21:25:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (John Higdon) Re: Satellite Conferences (Bill Darden) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Rich Zellich) Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" (Carl Moore) Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel (Dave Levenson) Re: Call Waiting Question (David Daniel) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tad Cook) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Brian Gordon) Re: Noms de Guerre (Rich Zellich) Re: 301-950 Exchange (Ken Jongsma) Calling India: Mixed Experiences (Pushpendra Mohta) Sun Sparcstation as a Phone (Franck Boissiere) NYNEX Offering 'Local' 800 Numbers (Steve Elias) 415/510 Split Affects Zip Code Correlation (Carl Moore) Groveton Area Near Alexandria, Va. (Carl Moore) T3 CSU/DSU (Mike Tharenos) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) Date: 1 Feb 90 23:04:01 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Marvin Sirbu writes: > Typical utility profits are 12 - 14% return on equity. Microsoft > makes at least twice that, and IBM traditionally has earned 19-20%. But don't overlook that that humble 12-14% is guaranteed. No matter what happens, the company will make that return on equity. And, of course, this doesn't take into account some of the creative paperwork the accounting departments at the various utilities (see previous posts) can generate. Microsoft, on the other hand, could lose its (investors') shirt tomorrow, and not one PUC would step in to save it. To some people, that security is worth many points of return. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bill Darden Subject: Re: Satellite Conferences Date: 2 Feb 90 15:55:50 GMT Reply-To: Bill Darden Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA You will want to contact: National Technological University c/o Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO (303) 484-6050 National University Teleconferencing University c/o Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK (405) 744-5191 Good luck, BiLL..... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 8:17:45 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Dana Paxson wants to get the PIN off the calling card, for security reasons. It seems to me, that for the great unwashed, who have their real telephone number (as opposed to a billing-only made-up number, as some of the Telecom subscribers do), that the card is the only thing they get that has the PIN. What they really need to do for these people is take their name and phone number off the card, leaving just the corporate name/logo and the PIN - hopefully these people can remember their own name and number. Since there would then be more room on the front of the card, the calling instructions could be put on the front, in larger type than what is on the back (or the litle card that originally came with my first AT&T calling card). If someone finds a PIN-only card, they would have no way of knowing what number it belonged to, and with no name couldn't look it up, either. If a purse or wallet is stolen, the name would be known, but so many people put their various PINs on a slip of paper in their wallet somewhere anyway, that it probably wouldn't matter. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 9:58:53 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" What constitutes notice of the area code change? The insertions in people's phone bills? The notices in this Digest are very early (213/310 notice reached me Dec. 15, 1989, 2 years and 1 1/2 months before it takes effect) but this is a small and scattered audience compared to the people getting the new area code. This problem of splitting communities occurred with 213/818 split, as I recall reading. As is the case in New York City, you have to dial the area code even on local calls across NPA boundary. Notice that 212/718 split is along borough lines and is along waterways, and I am not sure that even the 213/818 split was along "natural" borders -- certainly not waterways. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel Date: 3 Feb 90 01:24:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <3404@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: ... > From The Economist January 27 1990: > "British Telecom is selling its 51% stake in Mitel... ... > Will this leave AT&T as the only surviving US PBX manufacturer? ... > Yours with an SX-5 still hanging on the wall... My SX-5 indicates that it was made in Canada. Mitel is not a US PBX manufacturer. Also, it is not clear that Mitel is not surviving. (Our SX-5 is sitting on the floor!) 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: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question Date: 2 Feb 90 20:00:27 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Just in case you DO need Call Waiting to set up your forward-on-busy arrangement you need to do this: Change the value of register S9 Carrier Detect Time from the default of 7 (.7 seconds) to 15. This increases the time between loss of carrier and modem disconnect. Of course the host modem will need to be on an eqivalent setting as well. ---- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello [Moderator's Note: As you point out, the other end needs the same change in its register. Its unlikely the typical user will have access to the modems on the other end (terminal servers, BBS lines, email and other commercial services), thus for all practical purposes, this really won't make any difference. Also, depending on how important your data is (or difficult to decipher/read if binary code, etc), you will lose data and gain garbage in its place during that interim. PT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 2 Feb 90 20:21:09 GMT Organization: very little As a followup to Ken Dykes' story about the charge for unlisted numbers, I ran into an interesting situation when we got the new 5ESS service at my home, and I decided to "link" my two phone lines with residential Centrex. I told them that I wanted the second number unlisted, as I wanted all incoming calls to originate on "line 1". Originally they were going to charge me for the unlisted number. At my prodding, either they changed their mind, or they found a feature in Centrex tarrifs that did not charge for having unlisted numbers on all but the main Centrex number. tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 11:11:22 PST From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Having recently read in this Digest that, at least in CA, "The Phone Company" does not charge for having a second line unlisted if the first line (same name/address) is listed, I called Pacific Bell to tell them to stop charging me $0.30/month for the "service". The service representative tells me I've got it backwards -- if your first line is unlisted (for a monthly fee) and you want a second line also unlisted, THEN the second line is free. Thus, according to one PacBell spokesperson, the first unlisted line (out of any number) is charged, and subsequent ones are not. Who is correct? Specifically, if I read the Digest properly and the second line should not be charged (first line listed normally), does someone have the suitable PUC directive/ruling/regulation/whatever reference to cite in my letter to PacBell? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian G. Gordon briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [Moderator's Note: I believe the rule is (as it is here in IBT-land) that one paid-for non-pub OR one free listing by default is satisfactory for the purpose of waiving further non-pub fees. That is, if there is *some number* for DA to give out for you, then you have met the requirements, since the 'aggravation factor', as we used to call it is mitigated. DA has something positive to tell callers about you. Likewise, if you pay once to be non-pub, then there are no further charges; after all, is DA supposed to tell the caller you are non-pub at two numbers or more numbers? If they insist on charging for non-pub when you are listed at least once, then insist to them that each time someone calls DA, you want *two recitations*; one giving your number and the second announcing "at the customer's request, the number is not part of our records, etc..." PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 8:25:48 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre Unless it's been changed recently, I'm pretty sure that Southwestern Bell, here in Missouri, will list you under any name you want - this is specifically offered as a security feature, I believe. Also, you are entitled to TWO listings for each phone number - so you can list both husband and wife separately, for instance, but some people use "cute"/"trick" entries for their second listing (those few people who know they can get one, anyway... it's not exactly a heavily-advertised feature). Actually, I suspect the telco might balk at any listing name that might appear to be an attempt to defraud - listing yourself as "Southwestern Bell Telephone", for instance. ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange Date: Fri, 2-Feb-90 06:05:21 PST I can't believe a telco would use 950 for anything! 950 was a pseudo exchange used prior to Dial 1 access to Long Distance carriers other than AT&T. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 03:28:07 PST From: Pushpendra Mohta Subject: Calling India: Mixed Experiences India seems to have come up a lot recently as an example of difficult to call places. I suppose it really depends *where* you call in India. In the last three years I have been calling New Delhi using AT&T, I only remember two occassions when I had to dial more than once to get a connection. (The quality of connections [echo, noise] seems to vary a lot though). On the other hand my ex-roommate who calls a not so well developed city can hardly hold a connection for more than two minutes, assuming he can get connected to the correct number in the first place. Under Indian conditions antique CrossBar Exchanges actually become CrossConnect. Funny thing is when he was experimenting with MCI and could not get through, a well-meaning MCI rep told him that during peak hours there was only a * 15 percent * chance that calls to India and Pakistan would connect through MCI and suggested calling through AT&T! My problems with AT&T: * Significantly higher calling rates to India (compared to neighbouring countries). * Inaccurate information provided by operators. (As part of its recent restructuring of tarrifs, AT&T actually reversed the standard and economy calling time slots to India! What was standard became economy and vice-versa. Many operators knew not of the change and advised callers incorrectly resulting in huge surprises in subsequent bills.) Pushpendra Mohta ------------------------------ From: boissier@irisa.irisa.fr (franck boissiere) Subject: Sun Sparcstation as a Phone Date: 2 Feb 90 12:32:27 GMT Organization: IRISA, Rennes (Fr) I am willing to use a Sparcstation 1 as a multimedia office system. For that purpose I want to communicate with the outside world using voice/data/fax ... transfers. From what I understand the audio chip can digitize and replay sounds. It can also generate DTMF signalling tones. Considering these facts I thought about hooking the SS1 directly to a phone line in order to include some telephony functionality into an integrated office system. Has this been done already? Any ideas about what may be troublesome with this idea? (is it possible to hang-on the line, to detect ringing?) I read in the Sun Sparcstation 1 documentation that the audio chip has ISDN capabilities. I don't really know what this means. Does anynoe know about the capablitites of this chip. I'd appreciate this information and I will summarize to the net. Thanks in advance. Franck BOISSIERE boissier@irisa.irisa.fr Prototyping Lab Manager boissier@ccettix.UUCP C.C.E.T.T. B.P. 59 boissier%irisa.irisa.fr@uunet.uu.net 35512 CESSON SEVIGNE CEDEX FRANCE ------------------------------ Subject: NYNEX Offering 'Local' 800 Numbers Date: Fri, 02 Feb 90 09:14:10 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com My recent NETel bill contained an ad for a new 800 service available around here. Apparently, the number is only good from the New England area... I thought that 800 numbers were either within 1 state, or countrywide... Has something changed? ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 [Moderator's Note: Just as there was always 'banded WATS', so there was 'banded in-WATS', allowing calls from everywhere in the USA, (Band 6), all places except Alaska and Hawaii (Band 5), various combinations of nearby and further away states (Bands 1,2,3,4), and intrastate only, known as Band 8. Bands 1 through 4 are rarely ordered these days since they just are not cost-efficient. It could be NYNEX has set up something along these lines. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 10:06:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 415/510 Split Affects Zip Code Correlation Because the notices in TELECOM Digest have pointed out that split as occuring along the Bay, I am able to offer the following regarding the zipcodes in what is now 415: 415/510 split: Area east of San Francisco Bay goes into 510, while San Francisco, the peninsula leading north into it, and Marin County stay in 415. 940xx (except for that portion in 408), 941xx, 943xx, 944xx stay in 415. 945xx (except for that portion in 707), 946xx, 947xx, 948xx go into 510. 949xx (except for that portion in 707) stays in 415. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 13:10:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Groveton Area Near Alexandria, Va. I looked up some 1965 listings just now and see 703-SO5 (765) appearing at Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon. Notes made much later which I have seen say that 765 is an Alexandria exchange in the Groveton area, which is the next exchange down U.S. 1 and the Potomac River from old-town Alexandria. Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon have since split off from the Groveton ex- change, and a new exchange area, south of the now-reduced Groveton exchange area, was set up. I know that 360 and 780 serve the Mount Vernon area, with some 781 (Engleside, the next exchange to the south, and which is toll to Md.) mixed in; 664 is at Fort Belvoir, and I don't know what is on the pay phones at Fort Belvoir. ------------------------------ From: Mike Tharenos Subject: T3 CSU/DSU Date: 3 Feb 90 00:26:21 GMT A friend asked me to inquire if anyone who reads this list knows of a supplier of CSU and/or DSU products for the T3 (44.736 bps) AT&T Accunet T45 service or equivalent. Ideally, what is desired is a box which meets the carrier T3 Network Interface on one side and produces and accepts clock and data on the other. Michael Tharenos Networking and Communications Systems Stanford University 415-725-1392 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #72 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05025; 3 Feb 90 15:02 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28946; 3 Feb 90 13:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03351; 3 Feb 90 12:06 CST Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 11:07:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #73 BCC: Message-ID: <9002031107.ab02625@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Feb 90 11:05:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Some Messages Lost (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook (Tad Cook) Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Stan M. Krieger) Re: Revised Country Code List (John R. Levine) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (John Stanley) Re: More Misdialed Numbers (Edward S. Sachs) Re: More Misdialed Numbers (Mike Koziol) Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Rick Farris) Re: How To Dial Locally (John Higdon) Re: Noms de Guerre (David Tamkin) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tad Cook) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Sam Drake) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Stanley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 22:09:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Some Messages Lost Due to an unfortunate circumstance, about six messages in the holding queue were lost Friday night at 10:00 PM. If you have an auto-reply from prior to 10 PM Friday, and if your message is not in this issue, then it is lost, and you will have to resubmit it. I am sorry that a mechanical error here caused this to occur, and it is quite rare that it happens. Some messages known to be lost were one from Daniel Senie about calling here from France and one from John Hidgon. Also, a couple messages from Steve (?), one of which dealt with COCOT 10xxx blocking in California. I *do* have a message from Gordon Burditt which came in late Friday night; there was no room for it in this issue. In other news: Our correspondent 'woody' from Canada has sent several more NPA tables for the various area codes in Canada. These are all in the Telecom-Archives file. It looks like the weekend is off to a great start for me! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? Date: 3 Feb 90 01:09:01 GMT Organization: very little Jesse Asher asked how to rig up a light that would illuminate when his modem was on-line. Many modems have an A and A1 lead, which are on the outside pair (the black and yellow leads on a modular connector) on the RJ11 telephone line jack. The A and A1 leads short together when the modem is on line. You may have to check your modem manual and option switches to turn this feature on. Just wire up a light and a battery in series with these leads, and you will have your "modem busy" lamp. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls Date: 2 Feb 90 19:37:57 GMT Organization: Summit NJ > [Moderator's Note: And this is also a new source for fraud, as people > are learning that their name can be anything at all, i.e. 'I will be > home in an hour'; 'meet me at 5:00 PM at the airport', etc....to which > the called party responds 'no', and disconnects. No charge for the > call, yet a message delivered quite well. At least a live operator > knows it is unlikely your name will be 'call me back at abc-wxyz'; the > computer knows from zilch. PT] I don't know if I read this in this group or somewhere else, but such fraudulent usage can clearly be traced. Obviously, the voice recordings can be kept; all the telco or AOS needs to do is listen to each day's recordings and if a message appears where the person's name should've been, they can assume the call was made, completed, and accepted, and bill the receiving phone anyway. I'm sure the technology exists, or can easily be developed, to allow a playback of only the rejected calls, so it's a lot less listening. True, someone may try to "prank" someone else by using an automated collect phone to leave such a "message", but clearly how many people who really did try to leave a message instead of their name would do it again if they were caught? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Revised Country Code List Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 2 Feb 90 18:25:41 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <3461@accuvax.nwu.edu> chris@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Chris Johnston) writes: >France +33; Marseille 91; Nice 93; Paris 1 France has changed the way that they write the numbers so that outside of the Paris region, the entire eight-digit number is considered to be the local number, e.g. a number in Nice that used to be (93) 22-33-44 is now written 93-22-33-44, and there's no city code. From outside France they are dialed the same way, as before. Numbers inside the Paris region are (1) 44-55-66-77, you dial the 1 from outside the country. >French Antilles +596; All Points * (Martinique,St.Barthelemy,St.Martin) >Guadaloupe +590; All Points * St. Barts and the French part of St. Martin are admistratively part of Guadeloupe, and I believe that they share its code 590. >Guantanamo Bay +53; All Points 99 The country code for all of Cuba is 53. I realize that it's not dialable from the U.S. except via a 700 number in Florida that rarely works. Can you dial, say, Havana from other places via +53 1 234567 or some such? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 08:43:23 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light In article <3396@accuvax.nwu.edu> Don Alvarez writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 67, message 5 of 11 > [lots of numbers deleted] Plain copper wire has always had a good velocity factor. Unfortunatley, the coax variant can range anywhere from 95%c to 60%c. Even within the same type from the same manufacturer. This causes great havoc when trying to make resonant feedlines (Hmmm, is this the .6c RG-58 or the .78c RG-58?) nn m m RRR i John Stanley N8GFO 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 #include stanley@nmri.com ------------------------------ From: Edward S Sachs Subject: Re: More Misdialed Numbers Date: 2 Feb 90 22:09:59 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories This is a true story, it happened to a friend of my wife. This person's home phone, in the Chicago area, was apparently frequently confused with that of a local hospital, and thus received numerous wrong numbers. The friend moved to Boston, but for a period retained the Chicago area apartment (and phone) for use in fairly frequent trips back here. On that phone, they left an answering machine, with a message like: You have reached xxx-xxxx. We are no longer at this number, but you may reach us at 617-xxx-xxxx. I don't recall how many calls for the Chicago area hospital were dialed to Boston (it was more than one). Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL att!ihlpb!essachs, e.s.sachs@att.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 08:49:42 EST From: Mike Koziol Subject: Re: More Misdialed Numbers Here at the Rochester Institute of Technology we had a staff member complaining of receiving many annoying phone calls where no one would speak. We placed a "bridge" on the line so the calls would also appear on the ani display at the security office to see where the offending calls were coming from. They appeared to be mostly in the evenings and from numerous dormitory rooms. We finally came up with the answer to the problem after visiting a few rooms and questioning the occupants. All the callers were hearing-impaired and were trying to call a local pizza franchise using their TDD's (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) and didn't know they should dial 9 first. So as a result they were getting extension 2442 instead of 244-2400. I had the misfortune of working during the Super Bowl and didn't even have to listen to the radio to know when half-time was, the "bridge" just went crazy. I answered a few calls and told the callers how to call correctly and may even have taken an order or two. :) ------------------------------ From: rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) Subject: Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report Date: 3 Feb 90 07:52:59 GMT Reply-To: rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California In article <3440@accuvax.nwu.edu> munck@mwunix.mitre.org writes: > > While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory > > environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of > > events that led to this problem couldn't be predicted. ^^^^^^^^ ^^ > Is there any justification for the assertion that the prediction was > (and is) _impossible_ in these circumstances? Yes. At least it is impossible in the same sense that it is impossible for a computer to play a perfect game of chess. There's just too many possible combinations of subsystems to delineate (let alone test) them rigorously. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally Date: 3 Feb 90 02:26:48 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon "John R. Levine" writes: > On the other hand, if > I dial 1-802-457-xxxx, it gives me back the dime if I deposited one, > the nice lady asks me to "please ... deposit ... ten ... cents," and > when I do so, thanks me for using AT&T. Now that's confusing. A few years ago, the coin phones in one of the San Jose COs were still served by #1 crossbar. A call to Mountain View from San Jose is local. However, it crosses an area code boundary. So using one of those coin phones went something like this: You deposit $.20, dial 415-969-1234 (or whatever). Immediately, your money is returned, as if you have dialed a toll call. Then the snotty automated voice comes on (the one used for intraLATA toll calls) and says, "Twenty cents, please. Please deposit twenty cents FOR THIS CALL." In goes your money that you retrieved from the coin return and your call goes through. When they cut these phones to ESS, this charming exercise went away. > Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs > that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental > U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates > otherwise. The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the > first decent COCOT ever. I have heard of these. And every time someone mentions one, they also mention that it doesn't work. Do you suppose there is the possibility that they are dummy phones planted to try to prop up the sagging image of COCOTs? Anyone run across one that does indeed function? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 23:26:10 CST Organization: Chinet Puppy Pound And it came to pass in Volume 10, Issue 69, that Jim Shankland wrote: | Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first | for both): | | Wheldone Rumproast IV | Wong Numba An acquaintance of mine had a spare line listed in his dog's name rather than paying for nonpublished service. He lives in a quite well-to-do area. The billing records are in his own name but the directory listing is in the name of his pampered pooch. Nonetheless, the lucky canine, whose sole economic presence is a telephone listing in a posh zip code, receives mail with offers of credit cards, solicitations from brokerage houses, and such. It's a dog's life. 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: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 3 Feb 90 01:19:42 GMT Organization: very little William Degnan mentioned funny name listings as an alternative to unlisted numbers. Recently, just for fun, I got an additional listing on my home phone for my HAM RADIO CALL LETTERS! They were suscpicious, thinking that I was trying to list a business on a residential line. I told tham that KT7H is my roomates name. It took a lot of talking and a few threats, but they did it. Tad Cook KT7H tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Sam Drake Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 2 Feb 90 08:06:06 GMT Reply-To: Sam Drake Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose In article <3353@accuvax.nwu.edu> kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) writes: >Well, I wanted unlisted, but didnt want to pay for unlisting, so I >used OLD TRICK NUMBER 5123443 and put in a name different than my own. >(K.Dijkstra instead of K. Dykes, original eh? :-) :-) A friend of mine got away with a similar trick one year; he listed his 2nd (modem) phone line as belonging to Mr. T. T. Y. Glass. Naturally this was listed as "Glass TTY ......345-6789" in the white pages. I think this only lasted a year. Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center Internet: drake@ibm.com BITNET: DRAKE at ALMADEN Usenet: ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake Phone: (408) 927-1861 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 08:35:46 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? In article <3393@accuvax.nwu.edu> pushp@cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta) writes: >And one would think adding your name to the phone book would make the >phone company move everything one down too. No ? :-) Why do you think it costs so much to get a line installed? 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 #include stanley@nmri.com [Moderator's Note: Remember, IF you have an auto-reply from prior to 10 PM Friday night, and IF your message has not appeared in this or prior issues, then it is lost. (There were only about six in total, and above I named the ones I remembered.) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #73 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16160; 3 Feb 90 20:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27847; 3 Feb 90 18:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24006; 3 Feb 90 17:13 CST Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 16:49:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #74 BCC: Message-ID: <9002031649.ab31846@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:48:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson All Those Acronyms and Abbreviations (Chris Johnson) Explain the Logic of Long Distance Rates (David J. Farber) Re: 301-950 Exchange (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: 301-950 Exchange (Chris Johnson) Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Gordon Burditt) Re: "Sleaze" (Chris Schmandt) Re: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted (Chris Johnson) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Ben Ullrich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: All Those Acronyms and Abbreviations Date: 3 Feb 90 01:41:42 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA I've been reading comp.dcom.telecom for over a month now, and right from the start, writers used acronyms and abbreviations that I'd never seen before, as well as a few terms that were not self-evident. But since most moderated groups have a period posting that usually answers the commonly asked questions to reduce the noise level, I thought I'd just wait to see if most of my questions would be answered. In the mean time, I did my best from the context, have managed to figure out a lot of the cryptic abbreviations that pass through here. However, there are still a number of them that I just don't have a clue on. So, I'd like to suggest a posting of a compact but fairly complete glossary of these terms. Would that be possible? For example, just what do AOS, POP, LEC, CO, COCOT, LATA, and LDC stand for? Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 [Moderator's Note: Here's a few: AOS = Alternate Operator Service; LEC = Local Exchange Carrier; CO = Central Office (a telco switching station); COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone; LDC = Long Distance Carrier. You can find the others in some files in the Telecom Archives. Look for the files 'glossary.txt' and 'phrack.acronymns'. You can use ftp to reach the archives at lcs.mit.edu. Advise if you need more help. PT] ------------------------------ From: "David J. Farber" Subject: Explain the Logic of Long Distance Rates Date: 3 Feb 90 17:22:32 GMT Reply-To: "David J. Farber" Organization: University of Pennsylvania I just asked ATT for the evening rates from Landenberg Pa to Ithaca NY direct dialed. They were .15 for the first minute and .16 for each additional minute. It used to be that the first minute was much more to "pay for the call setup" and additional minutes were cheap. Was this an attempt to play the PR with MCI? David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele: 215-898-9508(off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: 215-898-0587; Cellular: 302-740- 1198 "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- R. P. Feynman ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange Date: 2 Feb 90 14:41:49 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <3456@accuvax.nwu.edu>, velu@ra.src.umd.edu (Velu Sinha) writes... >C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD >State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach >the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy >when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" >message when dialing 1+10 digits).... >Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from >out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682. If you get through, perhaps you can >ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !! >ps. Anyone know what this 950 service for MVA really does? Very strange. 950, of course, is the access code for "Feature Group B" carrier facilities. MCI's 950-1022 is probably the best known in these parts (the Digest). And each 950 number indeed translates to a different access code, since it points to a carrier just as 10xxx does. 950-1MVA thus implies that MVA got a Feature Group B access arrangement from C&P. That requires special trunks, etc. Why would they do this? (Remember, too, that 950 numbers are unique nationwide.) I can only speculate that in-state 800 Service may have cost more per minute than FGB access calls. So MVA may have declared itself to be a "carrier", its telephone agents to be "operators", and now they have the same arrangement as real telephone carriers' operators. They thus have toll-free dialing for a fraction of the price of an 800 number. (If I recall, FGB usage is under a nickel a minute.) That's my guess. Anyone know the real story? BTW, if it's true, we're due to exhaust carrier access codes VERY quickly. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange Date: 3 Feb 90 01:24:40 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <3456@accuvax.nwu.edu> velu@ra.src.umd.edu (Velu Sinha) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 70, message 10 of 10 >C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD >State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach >the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy >when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" >message when dialing 1+10 digits). >Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from >out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682. If you get through, perhaps you can >ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !! I tried this just now for fun. It rang twice, then I got a recorded message saying "my call could not be completed as dial, please check the number and dial again, or call 800-888-1800 for assistance. Two-Eee-Dee". The 800 number is for MCI customer service. My long distance carrier is MCI, obviously. I called them, and they said the "950-1682" number was invalid for area code 301. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups Date: 2 Feb 90 06:33:31 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt In article <3402@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >gordon@sneaky.tandy.com (Gordon Burditt) writes: >[...] >} Sigh. If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right: ... >} Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance >[...] ... >I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In >fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting >the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the >the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't >see how your proposal would do that. I suppose I should have included some more context in this discussion. Problem: Carriers keep screwing up people's default carrier. My solution: Deny carriers permission to change anyone's default carrier for any reason. Also deny them permission to know anyone's default carrier, or to know who has *THEM* as a default carrier. Objection: Carriers have a right to refuse customers, for insufficient credit among other reasons. Me: (grumble) They won't take them as a default carrier, but they will take them as a 10XXX casual caller? This seems somewhat pointless. Deadbeats can't dial 5 extra digits? Ok, if they MUST have this, then have the customers get a note from the carrier and pass it on to the local phone company, NOT have the carrier get a note from the customer and pass it on to the local phone company. >In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated >records which *I* would be required to maintain. Something which is >less than desirable. I expect AT&T would immediately say "We'll take anyone". Others would probably follow suit, but even if they didn't, all that would be needed would be an indication that an account had been set up for those carriers that insist on this. Southwestern Bell allows you to request that they only honor requests from you, directly, for carrier changes. (This should be the default). I don't know if it's ever been tested - I suspect they will not honor my request to "prosecute first and ask questions later" anyone who tries. It also takes lots of talking, but they will allow "null" as a default carrier selection. (No, this does not cut off all access to long distance. That is a different option, and costs $$ per month.) Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell will also allow 'none' as the default 1+ carrier, meaning one plus anything other than 1-700, 1-800 and 1-900 are intercepted and given re-order tone. Likewise, '00' is busied out. People with 'none' must dial 10xxx on every LD call. They will also completely toll-restrict the line if requested. These days it is no skin off their nose. PT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Schmandt Subject: Re: "Sleaze" Date: 3 Feb 90 16:55:35 GMT Reply-To: Chris Schmandt Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA In article <3435@accuvax.nwu.edu> drilex!carols@husc6.harvard.edu (Carol Springs) writes: >At New England Telephone, the charge is $.45/month and is called >Telesure-Basic. On a recent Saturday morning, I got a call from New >England Telephone hyping a great new service called "Telesure-Plus." >If I chose this wonder-option, then not only could I pay (some $ >amount I quickly forgot) every month from now on, but I would be >protected from getting billed $55/hour for service in my home if the >problem turned out to be in my phone equipment rather than in the >inside wiring. ... >...I got the Telesure-Plus hype call a week or two >after I'd reported the problem. Could be coincidence, I suppose. I just had one of my lines fixed. It was clearly an external wiring problem, so I disconnected by hodge-podge of phones, modems, fax, etc. and called it in. The repair order person started asking the usual questions; when I explained that I had a phone jacked directly into my network interface (and the line noise was audible to both of us) she said "sounds like our problem, we'll fix it by 6 PM Saturday". The line got fixed the next day. That evening we got a call from the NET telemarketing folks, which confused my wife as she interpreted it as a subtle threat to bill us $55/hr to fix the line. She was annoyed! Anyway, a question. The telemarketer seemed to imply that if someone came out to fix a problem, and it turned out to be on our side of the network interface, that we *had* to let them fix it on the spot at $55/hr. I had always assumed that you would have the option of telling them thanks but I'll do it myself. Does anyone know if you have a choice to refuse service on your own wiring if someone on the spot claims it is your wiring in response to your service call? chris ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted Date: 3 Feb 90 01:16:33 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <3455@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 70, message 9 of 10 >Somebody wrote: >>> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the >>> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, >>> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he >>> can't find it either. >Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told >that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying >the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get >it; it is not available, period. Would this half-baked idea make any sense: What if the unlisted (which at least here in Minneapolis and in Denver means just not in the phone book but available via Information) and the unpublished (you can't get it at all) person's names were listed in the phone book, but instead of a phone number, it just said "Unlisted" or "Unpublished", as the case may be? The first argument against that is it would give away that the person in question _did_ have a telephone. But you can usually glean that from calling information and asking for their number, anyway. Sure, the information operators might give the same "I'm sorry, that number is not published" answer for a non-existant telephone subscriber/customer, but _I've_ never had them do that. I always come away from calling information with either the number I want, or the knowledge that either the person does not have a phone in their name, or the phone company just is not going to give it to me. Any other arguments? It seems to me it would reduce information calls to some extent, but would it be a significant amount? Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 [Moderator's Note: Here, the theory is you can sit all day and brouse through the directory, looking for names, addresses, etc; where calling DA requires you to have a *name and address to start with*. And DA won't fool around chatting with you for more than a few seconds. They won't do your brousing for you. By brousing the directory you can (if your idea was implemented) learn of the *existence* of people and addresses who wish to maintain their privacy. It is unlikely you would gain this much knowledge from a call to DA. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 10:20:13 -0800 From: ben ullrich I think your original premise (and Patrick's explanation in the footer of your article) are correct: as long as you have something listed, subsequent lines at the same address may be unlisted for $0.00 . I know this is the case, even for Pac*Bell, because this is the setup I have at my home in San Francisco: my modem line is unlisted because my voice line is listed. (Maybe it should be the other way around?.. or under a different name ??! (;-) ). Unless they've changed things at Pac*Bell, I'd say your service rep is mistaken. Ask to speak to a supervisor, or just be adamant and logical with them about the rules as we've described them here. Many reps will get nervous and put you on hold, looking for someone else in their group to explain things, so they can tell you you are correct and put the order in. I often had to do that when managing telecom at my company. You'd be surprised to discover how little Pac*Bell service reps know about the services they sell. ben ullrich only i do the talking here -- not my employer. sybase, inc., emeryville, ca ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben [Moderator's Note: I wouldn't be amazed by it at all. I talk to business service reps frequently (as opposed to residence service reps) at Illinois Bell and sometimes, frankly, I am embarassed for them. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #74 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07397; 4 Feb 90 6:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30022; 4 Feb 90 4:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25954; 4 Feb 90 3:41 CST Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 3:11:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #75 BCC: Message-ID: <9002040311.ab00352@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Feb 90 03:10:28 CST Volume 10 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" (David Lewis) Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (Linc Madison) Re: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes (Linc Madison) Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel (David Daniel) Re: Call Waiting Question (David Daniel) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Wm. Randolph Franklin) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Stephen Tell) Senate Bill: If ID Available, Must Offer Blocking (Jerry Leichter) Re: 301-950 Exchange (Steve Forrette) Checksum on Calling Cards (Steve Forrette) California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? (Steve Forrette) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Steve Forrette) COCOTS and 10XXX-0 (Michael Katzman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" Date: 3 Feb 90 18:44:29 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ [reference to a California bill requiring telephone companies to respect municipal boundaries when creating new area codes deleted.] I wonder if the telcos could ignore this (or sue the state of California over it) claiming that California does not have jurisdiction? The logic is something like this: The telcos are adhering to an NPA split approved by Bellcore. Bellcore is the administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, responsible to Committee T1 of the American National Standards Institute. ANSI is, I believe, a subsidiary of the Department of Commerce. (We're getting into rather deep bureaucratic waters that I'm not familiar with here; if I'm mistaken, I'm confident someone will correct me...) The Department of Commerce is an executive branch department of the federal government, giving (by long, convoluted reasoning) the federal government jurisdiction over area codes... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:11:42 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <3250@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 56, message 6 of 9 >John Higdon wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51: >| Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that >| bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. >When the old GTE Sprint and U.S.Tel merged, US Sprint replaced the old >nine-digit, no-surcharge travel codes with the fourteen-digit >surcharged FONcard numbers. Naturally, they sent me a number >including my telephone number. I phoned them screaming: it's bad >enough that they stick us with a surcharge they never seemed to need >before, but to reduce my security from nine digits to four was >unthinkable. Well, I suppose I have the best of both worlds -- my MCI card number is based upon a real phone number which I remember very easily, but it is a phone number now no longer in service. (I'm not defrauding anyone -- MCI bills me separately; the base phone number was simply a convenient device for arriving at a card number.) Also, there *will* be one way to make sure that calling card numbers don't match anyone's phone number, even after NNX area codes. My old fictitious-number calling cards, from SW Bell, Pac Bell, and US Sprint, were all of the form NNN-1/0XX-XXXX-XXXX. This format will still guarantee a no-match to any phone number. It also greatly simplified things for Pac Bell, because your account number with them is just your phone number, so they had to give me an impossible phone number for my special card. Thus, I was (415) 158-XXXX. For further security, they replaced "415" with a different NNN on the card number. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:19:37 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes Organization: University of California, Berkeley Wow -- I live in California and hadn't yet heard about 310 for L.A. (I've been off the network for a few weeks, but I didn't figure I'd missed *that* much.) One more general question: we had a long period of relative stability in the Numbering Plan, but then experienced considerable pent-up demand as we delayed the inevitable expansion. Anyone care to speculate when the current spate of area code splits will settle down? Or are we going to have an area code or two added every year for the foreseeable future? Just glancing at the chart someone (sorry, I forget who) posted recently of prefixes-in-use per NPA, I spotted over a dozen area codes that look ripe for a split. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu soon to be in Area Code 510.... ------------------------------ From: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel Date: 3 Feb 90 22:37:24 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Mitel is indeed a Canadian based firm, however much of their product is made in Texas and Florida. They were the ONLY PBX mfg. to post a profit for calendar year 1989. BT isn't dumping Mitel per se. They are however VERY restricted to the amount of Mitel equipment they can sell in the UK. They feel at this point that the capital they can get from the sale of their 51% can be better utilized in providing telco services. I consider Mitel equipment to be the best on the market as do many users. "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question Date: 3 Feb 90 22:40:33 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Our moderator's note as regards data loss and trash induced by Call Waiting is valid. However any error-correcting protocol would simply resend the effected block as the checksum would not vailidate. "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 3 Feb 90 23:54:20 GMT In article <3396@accuvax.nwu.edu> Don Alvarez writes: > Telephone Transmission Line Data >Characteristics of Standard Types of Aerial Wire Telephone Circuits > At 1000 Cycles Per Second >Type of Circuit Gauge Spacing Velocity > (mils) (in.) (miles/s) >Non-Pole Pair Physical 165 8 179,000 >Non-Pole Pair Side 165 12 179,500 == (etc) However, 8" or 12" spacing in the air is somewhat different from 0.05" spacing in a twisted pair. I thought that those signals traveled at about 2/3 c. Actually what we really want is the speed in a coax. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Date: 4 Feb 90 03:35:45 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill The original poster (sorry, lost the reference) suggested that calling cards not include the PIN for obvious security reasons. My Southern Bell (new this past August) card has only my phone number on the front, and a roughened rectangle on the back. The instructions with it suggest writing your PIN in pencil, and then erasing it after you've memorized it. It seems that security concerns have been addressed in a small but growing number of the places that we comp.dcom.telecom/comp.risks/etc types have been discussing over the years. Disclaimer: I'm just a satisfied customer. That isn't hard, I used to live in GTE-land. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 23:19 EST From: Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu Subject: Senate Bill: If ID Available, Must Offer Blocking Earlier this week - Monday or Tuesday - the {New York Times} ran an article about a bill submitted to the Senate that would require all phone companies that supply Caller*ID to also supply caller blocking. As I recall, it was introduced by a senator from Wisconsin. I meant to type it in but forgot, and the paper has now vanished. Just thought you'd like to know. -- Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:54:41 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange Regarding the recent postings about 950 prefix numbers, I don't think that they are for the exclusive use of long distance carriers. Here in California, Citibank has a 950 number for their credit card customer service. This just started sometime in 1989. It must be substantially cheaper than the 800 service it replaced, otherwise they probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble to install the dedicated trunks. The customer service center that answers the call is located near Las Vegas, and I don't know how the calls get to there from their point of presence here. Also, I don't believe that it's valid to dial a 950 number from outside its area code on any carrier. The numbers are also "magic" in the sense that they don't run up message units for those with measured service, and they are free from a payphone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:54:59 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Checksum on Calling Cards When I requested a calling card from U S West about a year ago, I was told that I was free to choose my own PIN, as long as it didn't start with a 0 or a 1. This being the case, I don't see how there could possibly a checksum scheme. When I got the card, it indeed had my 10 digit number followed by my chosen PIN. As far as PIN sharing goes, here's what I've determined from talking to AT&T and BOC representatives: When you request a card from AT&T, they send a request to your BOC for your PIN. If you already have a BOC card, its PIN is given to AT&T. If you don't, the BOC generates a PIN for AT&T, but doesn't issue you a card themselves. If you later request a BOC card, they use the PIN that they previously generated for AT&T. So, it doesn't seem like you have control over PIN sharing. Possibly the exception is when you request from AT&T a card that's not related to your phone number. Stupid Customer (Dis)Service Quote of the Month: When I couldn't think of a good PIN for my one-number card, the U S West rep suggested that I use the same PIN as my unrestricted card, so it would be easier to remember! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:55:13 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? I had the occasion to call the Pacific Bell COCOT office to complain about a phone that was blocking 10xxx dialing, and they said that the Calif PUC had ruled that it was *okay* for them to block carriers other than their own! Can you believe this? Considering the recent postings of others regarding the restructuring of regular service rates, I have serious doubts as to just whose interest the PUC is looking after. Since the CPUC can only regulate in-state calls, and since the FCC commissioner's order on blocking is still in effect, I assume that COCOT's still must allow 10xxx dialing for out-of-state calls, but I'd be willing to bet that the ones that block don't make that distinction. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:55:23 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Numbner Not Listed? I just had two lines installed by Pacific Bell, one for voice and one for data. Since I wanted the data one unlisted, the rep told me that there would be a monthly charge for this. Not knowing any better, I agreed. Based on John Higdon's recent posting, I called the business office on Friday, and the rep said that indeed a second line at the same address in the same name can be unlisted for no charge, and that he would remove the charges from my bill. Since the last time I had two lines I was paying for the service, it seems like it's Pacific Bell's policy not to mention the "freeness" exception until you ask about it. I told the rep that I thought that was a rather nasty policy, and he said "Well, it wouldn't matter in the long run anyway. Since the maximum profits we make are determined by the PUC, the extra revenue would end up being returned to the ratepayers anyway." What a crock! ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 90 19:56:07 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: COCOTS and 10XXX-0 Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home It seems unfortunate but almost every COCOT I've seen in this area (Annapolis - Washington - Baltimore), stops you dialing 10XXX numbers. The reason, given in a bullitin from one company who make COCOTS is as follows: 10XXX DIALING AND NO SCREENING. Dialing 10XXX to an IXC (Inter-Exchange Carrier) bypasses screening at the LEC if the IXC operator becomes involved. Payphone patron dialing of 10XXX-1+ must be blocked at the payphone. However, it may be necessary for the payphone to dial 10XXX-1+ to access the IXC for lowest cost routing of calls. In this case, the IXC should provide international call screening. Dialing 10XXX-0+ appears to be a weak link. If the caller dials 10288-0+ and waits for the operator, it is very easy to bill the call to the payphone. Test calls must be made to ensure the correct Telco screening is being accepted. Screening can be provided by the LEC and to some extent the IXC. Not all locations or IXCs provide the same level of screening. The simplest test is to dial an 0+ call. When the operator asks, "How would you like to pay for this call?" Say "Bill it to this number". The operator will instruct the caller to dial 1 next time, however, the call is put through. Proper screening will stop this. It seems that a desire to stop fraud rather than a wish to maximize revenue is the reason that 10XXX calls are blocked. This is far from satisfactory and highlights the need for the phone companies to provide a more comprhensive service to the COCOT operators so that a level of service comprable to that provided by the RBOC's payphones are available on the COCOTs. (N.B. This is not an incitment to commit fraud!) email to UUCP: uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael _ _ _ _ Amateur | VK2BEA (Australia) ' ) ) ) / // Radio | G4NYV (United Kingdom) / / / o _. /_ __. _ // Stations| NV3Z (United States) / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_ [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #76 BCC: Message-ID: <9002082002.ab06291@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>  Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 0:36:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #76 Message-ID: <9002050036.aa11787@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Feb 90 00:35:04 CST Volume 10 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) (Warren Gish) Re: Call Waiting Question (Miguel Cruz) Re: Call Waiting Question (Vance Shipley) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed (Randy Bush) Re: "Sleaze" (Colin Plumb) Re: California Passes "Area Code Bill" (Marvin Sirbu) Re: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? (John Higdon) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Dave Levenson) Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (PETER MURRAY) Don't Leave Home Without the Voicemark Messaging Service #. (G. Goodfellow) Another Blatant Error of MCI (Gary Crum) Telco Security? (John Higdon) At Last, An Honest Answering Machine (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gish@host.nlm.nih.gov (Warren Gish) Subject: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) Date: 3 Feb 90 19:54:00 GMT Reply-To: gish@host.NLM.NIH.GOV (Warren Gish) Organization: National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md. Perhaps over a year ago, someone mentioned a couple of touch-tone sequences that would toggle on-and-off the Call Waiting feature. I have an interest in this as well. Does anyone know what these touch-tone sequences are? Many thanks, Warren Gish user@host.nlm.nih.gov [Moderator's Note: Surely. Preface the number you dial with *70, and call waiting will be suspended until you replace the receiver. Any calls arriving during the time that call is in progress will receive a busy signal (or hunt, if you have that feature). If you have three way calling, then you may also enter *70 to suspend call waiting on an incoming call, or at any point during a call in either direction. When you flash, dial *70, and you'll be returned to the call in progess. In some places it varies: try 70*, #70 and 70# also; one of the four should work, however a warning: not all CO's run the same generics, and here and there, suspend call waiting is not available. Call forwarding overrides call waiting. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 16:07:12 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question In Digest 10.75, David Daniel said something to the effect that Call Waiting would not cause problems with protocol file transfers because the checksums would not match and the packet would simply be resent following the call waiting burst. The problem with this is that many modems, especially on long distance calls, simply drop carrier and hang up while the call waiting tone is obscuring the far-end carrier. Even if you set your modem to wait a long time before dropping carrier, there is no guarantee that the remote modem has been similarly adjusted. So, the protocol's ability to recover is largely a moot point, as the two modems will more likely that not have disconnected by the time the call waiting tone's over. ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 21:27:39 GMT In article <3473@accuvax.nwu.edu> tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) writes: [discussion of call waiting on modem lines...] >Change the value of register S9 Carrier Detect Time from the default >of 7 (.7 seconds) to 15. >This increases the time between loss of carrier and modem disconnect. >Of course the host modem will need to be on an eqivalent setting as >well. Actually, most offices do not pass the call waiting indication tone to the far end. Some will blank out the tone (to prevent the wrong party from thinking they have a call waiting). In this case the far modem will need to be as forgiving ablout carrier loss. Others (mine) do not give any indication at all, the modem would continue to send carrier. In any case it would be dependent on your CO so it will work the same way for all calls. Vance Shipley SwitchView - Linton Technology vances@xenitec.UUCP [Moderator's Note: In a digital CO, the other end hears *nothing at all*. The only way you know the other person has a call waiting (as opposed to the click you hear while the other person hears tone in older systems) is if they are talking, you hear their voice drop out for a half second. If you are talking at that instant, you detect nothing. PT] ------------------------------ From: Randy Bush Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 00:00:00 GMT wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes: >In a FidoNet echo (partly in jest), I discussed the use of "other" >names as the listed name as an alternate to unlisted/non published >service. I have been doing this for years. It is amusing to get junque mail for Modem Bush. ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: "Sleaze" Date: 5 Feb 90 04:08:03 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <3506@accuvax.nwu.edu> Chris Schmandt writes: > Anyway, a question. The telemarketer seemed to imply that if someone > came out to fix a problem, and it turned out to be on our side of the > network interface, that we *had* to let them fix it on the spot at > $55/hr. I had always assumed that you would have the option of > telling them thanks but I'll do it myself. Does anyone know if you > have a choice to refuse service on your own wiring if someone on the > spot claims it is your wiring in response to your service call? No; you can tell him no thanks (you can tell him to get off your property, simple as that), *but* the repairman can bill you for the time he took to determine that it was your fault, and probably something for travel. You're gonna end up paying something. By the way, does anyone know if residential 800 is available in Canada? The marketing droid I talked to hadn't heard of it, but I didn't trust her knowledge of the more obscure features. -Colin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 12:59:39 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit association with no official government status. Marvin Sirbu CMU ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? Date: 4 Feb 90 11:27:19 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Steve Forrette writes: > I had the occasion to call the Pacific Bell COCOT office to complain > about a phone that was blocking 10xxx dialing, and they said that the > Calif PUC had ruled that it was *okay* for them to block carriers > other than their own! Was that the 811-4646 number? Those people are incredibily uninformed and ineffective. It took me three months working with them to get some Pac*Bell pay phones programmed correctly, and then it only happened because I invoked a little upstairs muscle. Can anyone confirm that PUC attitude from an independent source? > Since the CPUC can only regulate in-state calls, and since the FCC > commissioner's order on blocking is still in effect, I assume that > COCOT's still must allow 10xxx dialing for out-of-state calls, but I'd > be willing to bet that the ones that block don't make that > distinction. The only reason COCOTs have to be allowed in the first place (and why states can't prohibit them) is because of the terms of the MFJ. Since the whole point of divestiture is to foster and encourage competition in the communications industry, how can a lack of choice (of LDCs) further that end? That's just replacing one Hobson's choice (AT&T) with another (a slimy, overpriced AOS). To my shame, I haven't been monitoring the CPUC lately. If they have slipped something like this through in addition to the "incentive regulation" abortion, then we can kiss decent regulation goodbye in the Golden State. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Date: 3 Feb 90 14:48:45 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <3438@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dwp@cci632.uucp (Dana Paxson) writes: ... > On the subject of phone credit cards/calling cards: ... > My input: Get the PINs off the cards. If people can't deal with that, > they can't deal with bank ATMs either. Furthermore, don't put the > PINs IN the cards (magnetically) either... Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN magnetically encoded on the card. It is nice of the banks, however, to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the card. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 19:28 EST From: PETER MURRAY Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? >I don't know much about phones, so I thought I post a message to see >what I could find out. Here's the scenerio: I've got an internal >modem without a speaker. I'd like to know when the modem is using the >line without picking up the receiver to check (wouldn't want to do >that, would we?). So, can anyone tell me how I can set it up so that >I have a light or LED on when the modem has the line (of course it >will be on when anyone's on line - I think)? This way I can tell >exactly what is going on. I would also be interested in this info. I live in an apartment with 3 other compu-nerds with modems, and someone is always picking up the phone on someone else. Any technical advice or schematics or ideas are welcome. Thanks. Peter Murray pm8moper@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu 205 Hepburn Hall pm8moper@miamiu.bitnet Miami University pemurray@miavx1.bitnet 513/529-4944 murrayp@apsvax.aps.muohio.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Don't Leave Home Without the AT&T Voicemark Messaging Service #. Date: Sun, 04 Feb 90 18:02:12 PST From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow Not knowing where I might be or what I might have in the way of a pocket telephone number rolodex on me, I decided to "check ahead" with AT&T 800 information to see if they would have the toll free number for AT&T's Voicemark Messaging Service. Knowing full well the number is 800-562-6275, a call to 800-555-1212, much to my surprise, was not able to yield a result. The information operator was so eager to please, that after trying to look up "AT&T Voicemark" or just plain "Voicemark" (the closest they could match being Voicemail International) i was transferred, without requesting it, to the supervisor who tried the same queries in vain. The best 800 information could provide was the AT&T business office 800 #. I'm a bit surprised that AT&T doesn't bother to list their new Voicemark Messaging Service with their toll free information service! Could having an "unlisted number" be a marketing ploy of some sort (like the Ma Maison restaurant in LA area) to have Voicemark Messaging be a highly coveted or exclusive service that you only hear about through friends?? Geoff Goodfellow, Anterior Technology, Menlo Park, CA. ------------------------------ From: Gary Crum Subject: Another Blatant Error of MCI Date: 4 Feb 90 17:44:39 GMT Organization: University of Southern California Well, it happened it me. About two weeks ago I called MCI (102220, then transferred to customer service) to ask if calls I make using 10222 need any special account setup. The respresentative told me no, and also told me that their calling card was free. I ordered a calling card, and explicitly told her not to have my 1+ long distance carrier switched from AT&T to MCI. She accepted after asking questions like "Why would you not want to have MCI as your long distance carrier?" Now, my long distance carrier is MCI, as revealed by 1-700-555-4141. I will call MCI and USWest as necessary to switch back to AT&T, but can anyone tell me how I can do more, e.g. report the MCI error to the Public Utilities Commission or help AT&T with their suit against MCI? Thanks, Gary ------------------------------ Subject: Telco Security? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 4 Feb 90 11:41:06 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional design. To the side there is a large parking lot. This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect that they are preparing for some seige. This is a quiet, residential neighorhood, fairly upscale, and not a place where anyone would suspect that there would be a phyical security problem. In twenty-two years, I have yet to have anything, car or house, broken into. Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 21:06:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: At Last, An Honest Answering Machine The Jeff MacNelly "Shoe" comic for Sunday, February 4: The picture is of a telephone and an answering machine. The machine is operating, and speaking to a caller: "Hi! You've reached Perfesser Cosmo Fishhawk.... I can't come to the phone right now..... Because I'm listening intently to this machine.... To see if you're someone I want to talk with. So, after the beep, start talking...... If I want to talk with you, I'll probably come on the phone with some lame excuse..... Such as, "I was just on the way out the door when I heard the phone." If you make it all the way through your message and I don't pick up, It's because I don't want to talk to you...." And the final picture shows the owl seated at his desk saying, "At last, an honest answering machine." Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #76   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20822; 6 Feb 90 3:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22781; 6 Feb 90 1:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00027; 6 Feb 90 0:45 CST Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 0:10:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #77 BCC: Message-ID: <9002060010.ab16575@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Feb 90 00:10:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Peculiar Service Entrance Circuit - On Hook 24 VDC ? (Jody Kravitz) Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding (Scott Lee) Modem Hookup For Earth Day - Need Help (Gary Trujillo) Breaking the Dial Tone (Gordon Meyer) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Leland F. Derbenwick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Peculiar Service Entrance Circuit - On Hook 24 VDC ? Date: 5 Feb 90 16:04:02 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego Recently I had a second, and then a third phone line installed. The original service was provided to my house by a five pair underground cable terminating on a four post carbon block protector. Only one pair was attatched. Activiating the second line required tieing down a second pair onto the unused posts of the protector block at the house, and also connecting that pair at the pole, about 600 feet from my house, to the appropriate cable pair. When the thrid line was installed, the simple protector block at my house was replaced with a modular box with "my side" which I can open and "their side" which can be opened only with a special tool. Their side has the underground cable termination, ground termination, and the protector blocks. My side has screw posts for each line and an RJ-11 connector for each line which I can unplug for testing. There is a "potted" circuit board underneath each RJ-11 jack. Our first line has always had a speakerphone (GTE model 08821) in the kitchen. The phone has an indicator light, "in use", which blinks when another phone on that line is off hook. Shortly after the installation of the third line, my wife noticed that the "in use" light on the speakerphone often blinked, even when I wasn't home. A quick check proved that neither the dog nor the two cats were making phone calls. I replaced the battery in the phone to no avail. I then measured the line voltage with a Fluke 77 DMM. The meter read 24 (+/- 0.1) volts. Everything I know about phones tells me it should be 48 volts. Measuring the second line gets wildly varying voltages, starting at about 40 volts when you first hang up, and fluctuating down to as low as 30 volts as time passes. Some questions: 1) Why is the open-circuit voltage on line 1 24 volts ? 2) Why does the second line's voltage vary so much ? 3) Can I fix my speakerphone to think 24 volts is on-hook ? 4) Would the readers be interested to have the schematic of the circuit board under the RJ-11 jack posted ? I derived this schematic by inspection: Line O-----------------------o---------o-----o | | | | | | | | (+) / | Cap |/ (o) (-) o-----o----|(trans) Res | | | |\ (o) (-) | | \ | Cap (-) (+) | | (+) Diode Diode | | | (+) (-) | o-----o | | | | | | | (o) o-----o-------o Res | (o) | | | | o--------o | o-----------------O To Phones | (+) Cap (-) | | (+) Diode (-) | (o) Res (o) | o-----------------O To Phones | o--------o | | | | | (o) o-----o-------o Res | | | (o) | | | | (+) (-) | o-----o Diode Diode | | | (-) (+) | | (+) | | / | Cap | | |/ (o) (-) o-----o----|(trans) Res | |\ (o) (-) \ | Cap | | (+) | | | | | | Line O-----------------------o---------o-----o I'm sorry, but I don't have any values to report for the components. I also do not know anything about the semiconductors. The installer claimed that from the central office they could use this circuit to determine: 1) Is there continuity on the line all the way to my house ? (A phone does not need to be connected for this test to work) 2) If there is a line-to-line short, which side of the circuit is the short on ? 3) If there is a line-to-ground short, which side of the circuit is the short on ? Does anyone know how this works or what prerequisite equipment must be in the CO ? Jody Kravitz P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Reply-To: scott@audiofax.com From: Scott Lee Subject: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding Date: 5 Feb 90 21:02:46 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta I need to fiddle with some u-Law encoded numbers (12-bit, 8000/sec, encoded into 8-bit). This is supposed to be standard phone company stuff. I have a couple of FINE, FINE references that describe the stuff and promptly give examples that have the sign switched from each other. Could someone please give me some examples (and tell me which sign value is correct for positive values after they are encoded). I just want to write a program that generates the lookup tables and I'd like to get it correct to avoid any distortion. Also, if you happen to be in "that sort of mood," could you drop some stuff on A-law, also? Thanks, Jeff Lee AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 220 jeff@audiofax.com 2000 Powers Ferry Rd. emory!audfax!jeff Marietta, GA. 30067 ------------------------------ From: Gary Trujillo Subject: Modem Hookup For Earth Day - Need Help Date: 5 Feb 90 18:38:37 GMT Reply-To: "Gary S. Trujillo" Organization: gst's 3B1 - Somerville, Massachusetts I am trying to provide technical assistance to the Boston Earth Day organizing office, and have run into a snag. I would like to make it possible for these folks to get hooked up to EcoNet. The problem is that they have a Merlin phone system, and their New England Telephone Company rep tells them that they need a dedicated line for the purpose. When I questioned them further about tapping off of one line of their multi-line phone system, I was told that the problem is that these lines are in a hunt-sequence. I believe this fact to represent a non-problem, given that all they want to do is to call out for maybe an hour every couple of days, and the hunt gizmo would just hunt around the line being used with a modem, just like it would if the line were busy for a voice call. When pressed further, they say that well, yeah, there is some way of using an individual line off of the Merlin system, but it requires special equipment, and that costs money, which they aren't willing to spend. I'm having a hard time believing the problem to be this difficult. There must be some easy way to use an individual line for a modem short of paying an arm-and-a-leg for some Merlin-to-RJ11 adapter, or whatever it is. Any suggestions? Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst ------------------------------ Date: 05 Feb 90 22:35:26 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Breaking the Dial Tone I have a re-occurring "problem" on my home phone line that I can't quite figure out. I use my modem to dial out nightly. At least once a night (but often 2 or 4 times a night) I have a problem with the disable call waiting feature (accessed by dialing #70 in my service area (Centel, suburban Chicago)). What happens is that my modem will dial using a #70wXXXXXXX command which is supposed to wait for a second dial tone before dialing the full number, this way call-waiting is suspended. The problem is that sometimes it dials the #70, the phone gives three short beeps (there's probably a name for this signal but I'm sort of new to telephony) then a short period of silence until the second dial tone kicks in. Now all is expected so far, but when my modem dials the rest of the string the dial tone continues. In other words, it's as if the switch is now deaf to the rest of sequence. If I try again it usually works fine...but then later that same night the problem may occur again. I suppose it could be the modem (a Supra 2400) but I've never had a problem like this at other locations. I don't try to disable call waiting on voice calls so I'm not sure if the same thing happens when using the phone. I've reported the problem to Centel but they say they can't duplicate the problem. (BTW - I reported this a 6:30 pm Friday night; a repairman called my back at 7 pm to get some more info from me, and then called me again Sunday morning at 7 am (*#*$#!) to tell me nothing was found!) Any suggestions or comments from Telecom readers? GRM 72307.1502@Compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like occassionally the CO is sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. In the past, when there was very little they could do about it, everyone could use touch tone, whether they paid for it or not. Now they can give you dial tone from one place or another, depending on what you are paying for. Assuming you are in fact paying for touch tone service, one of the paths extended to you for your call is either faulty, misprogrammed, or belongs to rotary dial customers. I will answer in detail later on; but if you have a second physical line there, I'd suggest next time it happens you put the line on hold, call Repair and get them to trace it. I'd venture a guess if someone in the CO can get their hands on it in time, before it drops, they'll find this to be the case. This is very definitly a CO problem, and nothing to do with your modem. To prove this, next time it happens, go off hook with your phone and try your own touch tone pad. They won't work either! The tones will sound, but the CO will, as you put it, be 'deaf'. PT] ------------------------------ From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Date: 6 Feb 90 01:44:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <3396@accuvax.nwu.edu>, boomer@athena.princeton.edu (Don Alvarez) writes: > In article <3335@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: > >The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light > >in coax cable... (.72 to .76, or some such). Does anyone know the > >propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is > >used for long lines?? > [reference data for a bunch of open-wire lines, > showing velocity factors about .94 or better] > Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only > assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we > clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper. This is hardly news: open-wire lines always had much better velocity factors than coax or anything else with a non-air dielectric. (Basic EE, or physics if you prefer.) Of course, open-wire lines have noise problems and they tend to take up a little more space than you'd like. And since the time difference for a 3000 mile span is something less than 8 ms, who's going to notice? But the real question is, why does anyone think this is relevant to current long-distance service? Yes, once upon a time, when you asked the operator for a long distance connection, you got a pair of wires (two pairs?) just for your call. But it's 1990 now... Trunk lines have been _at least_ T1 running over twisted pair for years. A "long lines" connection involves a route via some or all of fiber, digital radio, satellite, or DS3 over coax. And most of the delay is in the conversions and regeneration, not in the transmission. [Except of course for satellite, which is just a tad more distant. :-) ] -- Speaking strictly for myself, -- Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ -- lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd -- (and no, I have nothing to do with "long lines", except to use them!) ------------------------------ From: Thomas J Roberts Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light Date: 5 Feb 90 15:42:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <3396@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by boomer@athena.princeton.edu (Don Alvarez): > In article <3335@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >> [table of signal velocity characteristics in wire deleted] > Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only > assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we > clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper. > (God, how I hate waiting for those 20ms delays!) > -don Of course, the delay in the wire is only a small part of the total delay. Every modem (digital communication only) adds >1000 microseconds of delay. Every analog amplifier adds several to many microseconds of delay. Every analog Frequency Division Multiplexor adds several to many microseconds delay. Every digital regenerator adds up to a microsecond of delay. Every Analog->Digital or Digital->Analog conversion adds up to 125 microseconds of delay. Every time-slot-interchange within a digital switching system adds 125 microseconds of delay. Every satellite hop adds >100,000 microseconds of delay (but most of us don't have to worry about this). After you add all of these up, you then get to double the delay if you're concerned about the round-trip delay (and normally that's what is of interest). Fiber is very different, as the regenerators add only a few to many nanoseconds of delay, and they are spaced further apart. But the signal propagation in the fiber is slower than that of a wire or of a radio channel. The analysis of round-trip delay on a telecommunications channel is VERY complicated, and is extremely route dependent. If your path traverses a packet network, things can get downright bizarre. Note that signal delay is only a minor consideration when telcos engineer a transmission path (cost is the major factor, capacity, ease of maintenance, and reliability overwhelm delay considerations). Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #77 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23047; 6 Feb 90 4:29 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04598; 6 Feb 90 2:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22781; 6 Feb 90 1:50 CST Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 0:51:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #78 BCC: Message-ID: <9002060051.ab01731@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Feb 90 00:51:36 CST Volume 10 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Telco Security (Steve Forrette) Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tony Olekshy) Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (Michael Weiland) Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell (Clayton Cramer) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (Linc Madison) Re: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) (Peter Weiss) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (K. M. Peterson) Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage" (Steve Elias) Dialing Procedures From Prince William Area (Carl Moore) Re: Revised Country Code List (David E. A. Wilson) Re: Noms de Guerre (Jody Kravitz) Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Clayton Cramer) Wheldone Rumproast IV (Edward Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 06:39:25 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Telco Security? Reply-To: c186aj@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Steve Forrette) Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <3536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there >since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional >design. To the side there is a large parking lot. >This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with >motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking >lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid? Perhaps for liability reasons. When that CO burnt down a year or so ago (was it Oak Brook, IL?) they were without service for at least a couple of weeks. I read in Insight that several of the larger businesses served by that CO sued Illinois Bell for interruption/loss of business. Apparently, someone thought that the fire alarm was a falsy and ignored it. I'm not sure who prevailed in the court case, but I would imagine that if a CO got taken out by vandals/special- interest-group-needing-attention and that adequate measures had not been taken, that Pacific Bell could be held liable. As an aside, I remember overhearing a conversation between two Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies on a scanner where one was complaining that he had need to talk to someone who happened to work inside a CO in relation to some case he was working on. When he knocked or rang the bell or whatever, they said that there was *no* admittance to CO's by unauthorized personnel, and that a police officer was not considered "authorized" by Pacific Bell unless (s)he had a warrant. Needless to say, the cop wasn't too happy about this. I guess Pacific Bell is paranoid about something. Perhaps they are worried about a "ratepayer riot" over their pricing policies? :-) Seriously, considering just how important a single CO is to the tens of thousands of people and businesses it serves, I don't think they can be too careful. ------------------------------ From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? Date: 3 Feb 90 22:51:07 GMT Reply-To: tony@oha.UUCP Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In message <3355@accuvax.nwu.edu>, siegman@sierra.stanford.edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: > No, no!! Tom Lehrer (or was it Mort Sahl) explained this years ago. > It's because, when they take your number out of the phone book, they > have to move all the subsequent numbers up one. You see, a phone company makes money off publishing your phone number, just as others make money off advertising. Actually, your phone bill would be about $1/month higher if they didn't do this. So, if you don't let them list it, they have to get that $1/month back from you! Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.UUCP). "Its a Joke", D. Letterman. ------------------------------ From: Michael Weiland Subject: Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) Date: 5 Feb 90 20:07:43 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL When I lived in Chicago, I had a U.S.Sprint FONcard, whose number was my home number plus a PIN. I moved (to a suburb) two years ago, and was surprised that although I had a new number, my FONcard number remained the same (containing my old number). Since then, of course, 312 and 708 have split, so the number on my FON card is a different area code as well as different number. It's just as well -- as has been pointed out here, why have a phone number as part of the account number. ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell Date: 5 Feb 90 18:07:51 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA I've had two phone lines into the house for a couple of years, one a residence phone, the other the business line for my software business. Because the volume of software business hasn't exactly been overwhelming, I've wanted to disconnect that service, and save the $17/month minimum service charge. At the same time, it's convenient to have business calls for my various side businesses separate from my personal phone bill, so I've been reluctant to discontinue service on the business line. I called Pacific Bell, and they have a service called "fictious account numbers" which allows one phone number to have several credit card numbers, each of which is subtotalled separately on your phone bill, making it easy for me to keep the expenses of the firearms business, the software consulting business, and the writing business, separate for tax purposes. They have no problem giving several such account numbers on one phone line. (Of course, if you are dialing from home, you'll need to do credit card billing using the fictious numbers, but that's a small nuisance). This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Democracy is freedom only when the majority are tolerant -- which is never. =============================================================================== Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 17:00:11 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <3398@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Warnock writes: >To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the >number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local", >that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call. Yup, Pac*Bell pay phones have a fun and exciting algorithm. (1) Local (Zone 1 -- within 8 miles) call a. Listen for dial tone b. Deposit 20c c. Dial number d. If you did (c) before (b), you must hang up and return to (a) (2) Non-local (all other calls) a. Listen for dial tone b. Dial number c. If you inserted any change (even the exact amount) before dialing, it will be returned to you. d. Listen for recording telling you how much money to insert e. Insert three pocketfuls of change Thus, you can walk up, insert 55c, dial your number, have your change returned to you, and then be told to insert 55c. What a system! -- Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1990 08:29:26 EST From: Peter Weiss In article <3525@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gish@host.nlm.nih.gov (Warren Gish) says: >[Moderator's Note: Surely. Preface the number you dial with *70, and >call waiting will be suspended until you replace the receiver. Any >calls arriving during the time that call is in progress will receive a >busy signal (or hunt, if you have that feature). If you have three way >calling, then you may also enter *70 to suspend call waiting on an >incoming call, or at any point during a call in either direction. Additionally, some COs have it and don't have it i.e., we at PSU are served by the same Bell of PA CO as the adjacent community. There are at least 2 swtiches: one has Tone*Block (part of the Bell Atlantic (r) I.Q. (sm) Services Family), and one doesn't. Residential customers can specify that they want the T*B feature (no additional charge) and get assigned to the _right_ switch. Peter M. Weiss | (this line intentionally left blank) 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | Don't FAX me, I'll FAX you! University Park, PA 16802 | Disclaimer :1 * applies herein [Moderator's Note: "Tone*Block" ?? Is that another name for suspend call waiting? PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid From: KMP@s57.prime.com Date: 05 Feb 90 16:03:04 EST Place this under the heading of "Sprint Advertisement is Stupid". Sprint began to run a new series of ads billing itself as the "most reliable long-distance telephone company in the world", with the standard asterisk pointing to "Based on no major outage". Two questions: 1) Will MCI reconsider their decision not to kick AT&T while it was down? 2) Has MCI had a major outage that would justify the tag on Sprint's ads, e. g., is there any reason to think Sprint more reliable than AT&T? K. M. Peterson +1 508 879 2960 x3667 Prime Computer, Inc (K. M. Peterson solely responsible for opinions expressed in this posting). ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage" Date: Mon, 05 Feb 90 12:35:18 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com Sure enough, Sprint is slamming ATT by advertising that Sprint has never had a major system outage, in some of their new ads. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 14:05:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Dialing Procedures From Prince William Area This is from a trip I took recently to Virginia. Pentagon (offices physically in Va. but using area code 202 -- does not apply to pay phones there) appears in extended calling area from these 703-area points: Quantico 640 Triangle-Dumfries 221 Woodbridge-Occoquan 490,491,494,497 Arcola 327 Dale City 590,670,680,878 Independent Hill 791 Haymarket 754 Nokesville 594 Manassas 257,330,335,361,367,368,369 dial SEVEN digits for such calls to the Pentagon? (That's what the call guide said, from Contel.) From Dulles Metro 260 and Lorton Metro 643: "Dial ten digits (area code 703 plus seven digit number) for calls from 260 and 643 to an extended calling area." I assume this reduces to 7 digits sometime after the dust settles from implementing NPA+7D for local calls across DC-area NPA borders. Dulles 661, local to DC but not to Md., has no extended-calling area indicated. [ the above is from Manassas Nov. 1989 directory ] While at Stone Bridge area along U.S. 29 at Fairfax-Prince William county line, I walked a very short distance to pay phones on 703-830 (these are C&P phones on the Braddock exchange) on the Fairfax side. 335-xxxx "cannot be completed as dialed"; 1-703-335-xxxx "requires a 25 cent deposit before dialing", and I assume this can reduce to 7 digits as above. Notice, however, that 830, like 661, is local to DC but not to Md. ------------------------------ From: "David E. A. Wilson" Subject: Re: Revised Country Code List Date: 5 Feb 90 07:04:41 GMT Organization: Uni of Wollongong, NSW, Australia In article <3461@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chris@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Chris Johnston) writes: > Australia +61; Melborne 3; Perth 9; Sydney 2 The area codes for the Australian capitals are: Adelaide 8 Brisbane 7 Canberra 62 soon to be 6 with the 2 prepended to the exchange Darwin 89 Hobart 02 Melbourne 3 Perth 9 Sydney 2 David Wilson ------------------------------ From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre Date: 5 Feb 90 14:50:31 GMT Reply-To: Jody Kravitz Organization: U.C. San Diego > Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first > for both): > Wheldone Rumproast IV > Wong Numba A few years ago, when I lived in a residential neighborhood next to the University of Illinois campus, a friend of mine pointed out two unusual phone listings at a single address about a block from me: R. E. Sident O. C. Cupant I was very tempted to forward all my third class mail to them. Jody Kravitz (decvax|ucbvax|ihnp4)!sdcsvax!net1!kravitz ARPA: kravitz%net1@sdcsvax.EDU ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre Date: 5 Feb 90 17:55:51 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <3445@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rtech!llama.rtech.UUCP!jas@sun.com (Jim Shankland) writes: > In article <3360@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: # # If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great # #unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful # #solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the # #telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or # #Jim Bakker.... # Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first # for both): # Wheldone Rumproast IV # Wong Numba This is California. Those may not be pseudonyms -- they could be their legal names. (It's even possible those are the names on their birth certificates -- you should see some of the acid-induced names from the 1960s out here). Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Democracy is freedom only when the majority are tolerant -- which is never. =============================================================================== Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 08:42 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Wheldone Rumproast IV > Wheldone Rumproast IV A moderately reliable source tells me that Wheldone Rumproast IV is actually Melvin Belli's dog. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #78 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25257; 6 Feb 90 5:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19646; 6 Feb 90 3:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04598; 6 Feb 90 2:55 CST Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 1:57:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #79 BCC: Message-ID: <9002060157.ab12179@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Feb 90 01:55:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson No State Jurisdiction Over Gateways? (William Degnan) MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Steve Forrette) Centrex, Everyone? (John Higdon) Bad Experiences While Traveling (Robert Kaplan) 900 Crossword Sacrilege! (Bruce E. Howells) Wiring Maintainence Fee (Thomas Lapp) Re: Phone Credit Cards (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 04 Feb 90 0:43:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: No State Jurisdiction Over Gateways? Is anyone familiar with details where a LEC has claimed (with or without success) that state regulators have no juristiction over Gateway Services -- once permission to provide the service has been granted? It was suggested that PacTel had taken the position that it was an interstate service offering and therefore outside CPUC's jurisdiction. Has anybody heard anything like this? What's the story? 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: Mon, 5 Feb 90 07:55:53 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" It seems like several telecom readers have had bad experiences with MCI telling the BOC to switch their equal access default carrier. It would seem to me that unless the customer requested the change, that the customer is using MCI (or whatever it got changed to) without his or her knowledge. This being the case, can MCI enforce payment. 1) The customer did not know that they were using MCI. 2) By billing the customer for the calls, MCI is in effect generating business through an illegal act (I assume that telling the BOC that the customer has requested a change when this is not the case is illegal). Isn't it a general principle of law that you can't enforce payment on a debt resulting from an illegal act? [Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. There are also laws again you you profiting from an 'illegal act', which is what you would be doing if you did not pay. I'd say however it would be fair to pay MCI only the amount you anticipated you would be paying had the call been routed per your original instructions. PT ------------------------------ Subject: Centrex, Everyone? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 4 Feb 90 21:20:13 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Last Sunday, during a Superbowl party, one of the many Pac*Bell Centrex commercials appeared on the screen. One of those present proclaimed, "I would never buy a PBX. Centrex is the ONLY way to go." The guy was so forceful and opinionated that is became obvious that the Pac*Bell spots are obviously hitting their mark. This fellow, however, revealed a little telephonic naivety with his pronouncement. The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone. Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones; those with soft keys, visual confirmation, and multiple lines. Display phones are not available with Centrex. Just the simple (for a PBX) feature of having the callers name appear in the display would require some permutation of Caller-ID through the CO! How do you access features on Centrex? You flash the hookswitch, dial the code, hope it works. There is no visual confirmation. Music on Hold? No problem. Just send the program of your choice back to the CO on a pair (which you pay for) and they will handle it. Need to add a phone? Just place your order and they will do it on their schedule, as is the case with any configuration change. Most PBXs allow the customer to go to a terminal and type in his own configuration change. Adding a phone is usually no more complex than plugging in an instrument and typing in the change to the switch. The only customer that could logically benefit from Centrex is one that has a clear and pressing need to transfer outside callers from one office location to another. With short-haul microwave, the inexpensiveness of T1 and other technology, this is becoming easier and cheaper to do with multi-node PBXs. Centrex is an outside plant hog. It soaks up massive amounts of cable pairs and is conceptually inefficient. Ah, but with Centrex you don't have to invest in equipment, right? Well let's put it this way: you spend as much or more in installation and service charges as if you were buying or leasing equipment, but you have nothing to show for it, except for possibly a "termination clause". A termination clause provides that if you, for any reason, discontinue your Centrex service before a certain amount of time has elapsed, you are liable for some specified amount of money. And unlike having equipment which you could sell, there is no way to avoid paying those "termination charges" without being sued. Add to this the fact that Centrex customers are served out of the same equipment that provides regulated, monopoly dialtone to us, the unwashed masses. When I call 611 these days, I am tempted to begin by saying, "I realize that I am not a priority Centrex customer...". They must be making a killing on Centrex to be able to afford all that high-priced advertising. Or it's coming out of our ratepayer pockets. 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 Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. Pure and simple. I have it on my home phones. I used to have a PBX and would not go back. The PBX only cost me about a thousand dollars (in 1981), but I can get a lot of centrex rental for that. And, Mr. Higdon is wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them. They also have a system for large centrex accounts where they don't literally run a thousand pairs if the subscriber has a thousand extensions. They run maybe two hundred pairs, and use a few pairs as control lines. Those, plus a relatively small (much smaller than a PBX serving that many lines) gizmo at the subscriber's premises handle everything. The control pair zips ahead of the call with a message for the gizmo saying 'the call arriving on pair 96 is really someone who dialed extension 2037' or similar. Likewise the gizmo takes outgoing calls, finds a pair, and on the control line tells the CO 'the call I am giving you on pair 127 came from extension 2481. Very clever and effecient. While CPE is fine for some people, centrex is great for the rest of us. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 13:51:17 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Bad Experiences While Traveling This weekend, I took a road trip from Boston to Ithaca, NY. It was a good trip, but I had two extremely frustrating experiences with coin phones: First, I had to call Binghamton (607-797) from a phone outside Cooperstown, using my ATT card. I dialed 10288-0-607-797-xxxx. "Your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number..." The NYTel phone said the default carrier was ATT, so I tried again using just 0-607-797-xxxx. Another intercept. Finally it occurred to me to look at the number I was calling from. Aha! 607 area code, Binghamton LATA. Out of curiosity I tried 10288-0-797-xxxx, but got the same intercept, so I gave up and dialed 0-797-xxxx. Another reason for universal 10-digit dialing! Second experience: Marshall Street, Syracuse NY. After a bit of hunting, I couldn't find a NYTel phone, and all I needed to make was a (I thought) local call to 315-682 (Manlius NY). So I used a COCOT marked "Millicom Inc." No number listed for repair service. Dropped my two dimes and the nickel, got a dial tone, dialed 682-xxxx, and the DIAL TONE CAME RIGHT BACK! I hung up and it returned my coins. I should have stopped there, of course, but I tried again. After I dialed, the dial tone returned, the coins came back, and so I tried dropping them again. Still dial tone, and I couldn't even get my money back. Anyway, I made an immediate vow that no matter how desperate I get (except in life-threating emergencies), I will never again utilize COCOTs. They're not worth the trouble. I might also have some of those "OUT OF ORDER -- Misprogrammed Phone" stickers printed up :-) BTW, not all NET coin phones have the newfangled "record your name" style collect call feature; I used one in Lee MA (413-243 exchange) that went right to an operator. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 01:11:08 EST From: "Bruce E. Howells" Subject: 900 Crossword Sacrilege! 900-sleaze I can deal with... 900 and $35 on next month's phone bill I can deal with... But --- In this Sunday's _New_York_Times_ - right next to the crossword, no less - the following notice, quoted without permission: "Answers to any three clues in this puzzle are available by touch-tone phone: 1-900-884-CLUE (75c first minute, 50c each extra minute)...." What is the world coming to??? (although I take my crosswords quite seriously, this should be read with a thorough sprinkling of :-), as needed.) Even more interesting was a New York PBS channel (WNET-13) advertising 900's for donations: one each for $5, $10, and $15. I wonder if the overhead of the 900-provider's fee is comparable to what it costs them to process conventional pledges? And what if I'm at work, and decide that my employer should be generous and support WNET? Hmmm... Take care- Bruce Howells, engnbsu@buacca (BITNet), engnbsu@buacca.bu.edu just a random Engineering undergrad... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 20:48:12 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Wiring Maintainence Fee I've seen a few messages recently talking about the charges that the telephone companies levy for "insurance" against a problem with in-house wiring. As many people do, I live in an apartment building which has been pre-wired for at least one pair. Since the phone co.'s service ends at the enterance point to the building (an assumption), and I do not have access to the internal wiring of the building, who is responsible if there is a problem between the point the pair enters the building and the outlet jack in my apartment? The landlord? Me? The other question deals with the wire maintenance charge. Does it make sense at all for me to sign up for inside wiring maintenance since I don't really have control over the wiring within the building? And, no, I haven't checked with my landlord about this (yet!). I'll let you know what the landlord's policy is when I find out. - 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: One of the dumbest parts of divestiture was this problem of who handles the wire beyond what point. In large older urban areas like Chicago, we have hundreds of old (1920-30-ish) high rise buildings, formerly hotels with switchboards, with jumbles of wire coming in from the street. Multiples abound; a pair terminating in my building not in use will show up in the basement of the building down the block. The cable opens up three or four places, and I can go in the basement of my building and get on fifty different pairs all in use either in my building or the buildings across the street. You don't want to pay IBT to install, so your boyfriend says he can do the job; or maybe its the building janitor....then tomorrow my second line does not work. Fist fights have broken out in Chicago between people who accused each other of stealing their pairs and their service. But the judge, in his wisdom, and all that rot.... well, you know the story. Illinois Bell now handles the wiring literally to the front door of your apartment. They take care of the apartment building basements and the internal house-pair boxes; but at first, they literally stopped where the wires went in the building, until it got too ridiculous. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 5 Feb 90 23:48:22 EST (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article <3532@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN >magnetically encoded on the card. Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true any more. The number from your card along with the PIN you enter are sent along to the issuing bank for validation. My bank sends out cards with no PIN, then you have to appear in person at the bank once with ID, swipe in your card, then enter your PIN twice and they store it for future use. The way they pass the number and PIN back to the issuer is similar in concept but not in execution to the way that telco calling cards are done. By the way, there is no pattern to calling card PINs. Each operating company makes them up any way they want. My cousin who runs the family telco in Vermont used to run a random number generator on his IBM Sys/32. Each time you enter a calling card number, it is validated in the giant distributed calling card data base. My cousin once explained to me how he gets his numbers into the giant data base; for his tiny telco it's a complicated multi-stage process involving a service bureau run, I believe, by the USITA that actually fields the validation requests. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #79 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03516; 7 Feb 90 23:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05110; 7 Feb 90 21:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06534; 7 Feb 90 20:11 CST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 19:26:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #80 BCC: Message-ID: <9002071926.ab17385@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 90 19:25:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Steve Forrette) Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Will Martin) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Re: Phone Credit Cards (J. Deters) Re: Phone Credit Cards (John Wheeler) Re: Phone Credit Cards (cp@ukc.ac.uk) Re: Phone Credit Cards (Syd Weinstein) Re: Fictious Account Numbers: Useful Service of Pacific Bell (Bill Huttig) Re: Fictious Account Numbers: Useful Service of Pacific Bell (W. DenBesten) AT&T "Non-Subscriber" Card (was: Sprint Stuff) (Richard Duffy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 11:38:42 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" Organization: University of California, Berkeley >[Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you >have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of >reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. There are also >laws again you you profiting from an 'illegal act', which is what you >would be doing if you did not pay. I'd say however it would be fair to >pay MCI only the amount you anticipated you would be paying had the >call been routed per your original instructions. PT I agree that the caller should not get away with a free ride, but at the same time I don't think it "fair" (whatever that means) for MCI to profit from their misdeeds. There has to be more punishment to the misbehaving carriers than increased revenue. BTW, I called Pacific Bell to have them flag my account to ignore requests from the long distance carriers, but no such capability exists in their system (of course, the rep said their "hands were tied" by the PUC to accept instructions from the long distance carriers, which seems to be Pacific Bell's response to any customer complaint over pricing or policies). He also said that he's had to deal with *many* problems in which customers' default carrier was changed without their permission (of course, he couldn't identify them by name, but they know who they are!). [Moderator's Note: What you do is, you pay for the calls you made, and you sue the carrier for misrepresenting themselves and taking unauthorized action on your account. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 10:21:30 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" >Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you >have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of >reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. What about equating an unauthorized carrier-initiated switching of your default LD carrier with the long-established legal rules regarding unordered merchandise? If someone sends you unordered goods and then tries to bill you for them, you not only have no obligation to pay for them, but you have a perfect legal right to keep them. If they want the goods back, the sender has to bear all the costs and effort of getting them back. If MCI causes the telco to switch your default carrier to their firm WITHOUT YOUR AUTHORIZING IT, they are giving you a *gift* of their LD service! You don't owe them a cent, and have no obligation to pay for this *unordered service*. You can make all the LD calls you want for free, until they have the sense to terminate your LD service and stop throwing their resources away. As soon as a legal ruling in a couple jurisdictions established this principle, we'd see those LD companies being *very* careful about getting written authorization that will hold up in court as legal documents before doing any carrier-switching! Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Date: 7 Feb 90 04:22:19 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Sorry, this is straying a little off topic. In article <3532@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: > Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN > magnetically encoded on the card. It is nice of the banks, however, > to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the > card. The PIN (personal identification number; the "password", so to speak, as compared with the personal account number or PAN, the "login ID") is *NOT* stored on ATM or debit cards, not even in encrypted form. I think a checksum *is* stored, to allow for some off-network validation. One of the problems banks have with PINs is that people can't remember them . . . so they write them on the card! Great security, huh? My favorite story about PINs involves Al Brown, a plastic card pioneer who recently retired from AT&T. He went to Japan, where they showed him a plastic card, and proudly told him that the PIN was stored on the card. Al pulled a loop reader out of his pocket, a little gizmo with a sheet of magnetic bubbles (or some such) that make magnetic fields visible. He ran it over the card, passed the card back, and told his hosts what the PIN was! The engineers conferred in a side office, returned after a few minutes, and announced their solution: "Don't give cards to tricky Americans!" Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I've never been involved with AT&T Calling cards, and I'm *definitely* not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 90 11:19:04 CST (Wed) From: "J. Deters" Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Reply-To: jad@dayton.UUCP (J. Deters) Organization: Dayton-Hudson Dept Store Co. > Article <3564@accuvax.nwu.edu> From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) >In article <3532@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) >writes: >>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN >>magnetically encoded on the card. >Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true >any more. The number from your card along with the PIN you enter are >sent along to the issuing bank for validation. My bank sends out It is definitely no longer true. I program the Point-Of-Sale equipment for Dayton-Hudson Dept. Stores Co., and have had to do an awful lot with MSR cards these days! With the advent of Electronic Funds Transfer at the point of sale, security became a huge issue (we currently have no plans to implement EFT in the near future, but the latest release of IBM software has it coded.) At the Point Of Sale, IBM sells a special customer 10-key pad and Mag Stripe Reader that encrypts the PIN prior to transmission to the terminal. At no time is the data (PIN) transmitted in the clear (not even to the base unit of the cash register.) It's a shame that this isn't more widely known. I think that more people might be inclined to trust a system like that iff they knew that their data was secure. Of course, 95% of the people don't care one whit if their PIN is secure, because they're unaware of the consequences of losing it :-). Oh, as to selecting PINs: My banker just asked me for a number when I signed up for the card. I said, "Just some random number, please." He asked me "How about 6677?" I sighed and got out my pocket calculator (with the random number generator) and gave him four digits. He just gave me this funny look... J. Deters INTERNET: jad@dayton.DHDSC.MN.ORG .\ /. "Smile -- Cthulu loathes you!" UUCP: ...!bungia!dayton!jad \_____/ ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'12"W ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Date: 7 Feb 90 17:21:21 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta Realizing that this is NOT comp.banking.pins: In article <3564@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >My bank sends out cards with no PIN, then you have to appear in person >at the bank once with ID, swipe in your card, then enter your PIN twice >and they store it for future use. Yeah, but the most unusual I've dealt with, since my bank is out-of-state, is that the bank sends the card out with no PIN, then you are called at home (at NIGHT) by the bank, and you are connected to an automated PIN-select system. You enter up to 10 digits as your PIN, using touch-tones(R). My PIN was usable instantly at the ATM down the street. /* 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" */ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 13:38:43 +0000 From: cp@ukc.ac.uk Hi.. Can I ask a simple question ? What exactly are these calling cards from MCI etc.. ? Are they like credit cards? Cards that store numbers ???? I don't think that these kind of cards are in use in England, the closest thing, I guess, we have are the phone cards. These just give you a set amount of units. ie. a 40 unit phone card, costing 4 pounds, will give you that many units in phone use. This was done to stop the vandalism of the pay phones whereby people would try and access the money paid into it. Thanks Chris ( cp@ukc.ac.uk ) ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 13:52:01 GMT dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >In article <3438@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dwp@cci632.uucp (Dana Paxson) writes: >Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN >magnetically encoded on the card. It is nice of the banks, however, >to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the >card. While in the past, (ten years ago), banks have put the PIN on the card, presently most banks do not. It is indeed a database lookup. The interbank switching system (Cirrus, Plus, etc.) do indeed pass encrypted messages for verifying accounts and PINs. Those banks that do put the PIN on the back, for use by off line machines, usually now encrypt it. It is considered too much of a security risk to put the PIN on the card, and also too much trouble to change it, if the customer requests a change. ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell Date: 6 Feb 90 16:37:49 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <3548@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: >They have no problem giving several such account numbers on one phone >line. (Of course, if you are dialing from home, you'll need to do >credit card billing using the fictious numbers, but that's a small >nuisance). >This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of >the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem. AT&T offers a service called call manager where you place your call kind of like a calling card call and your bill is sorted by the 2 digit codes you picked. Bill ------------------------------ From: "William C. DenBesten" Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell Date: 6 Feb 90 19:33:37 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. From article <3548@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by optilink!cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer): > I called Pacific Bell, and they have a service called "fictious > account numbers" which allows one phone number to have several credit > card numbers, each of which is subtotalled separately on your phone > bill.... > This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of > the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem. Yes, except for one small detail. I would like to be able to disable long distance calling without the use of a credit card. This way if someone tries to call 1-900-pay-cash, their mom in attu, alaska or anything else that would cost me money, it would fail unless they put it on their credit card. BTW, the only phone on attu is in the coast guard station, and no moms work there. -- William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T "Non-Subscriber" Card (was: Sprint Stuff) Organization: U. Chicago Dept. of Mathematics Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 11:28:28 -0600 From: Richard Duffy In article <3161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Louis Mamakos writes: >What I really want, though, is just the reverse. I want a AT&T >calling card with an account number that *ONLY* works with AT&T. I >don't want some slime-ball AOS to intercept/ignore the 10288 prefix >and complete the call. I suppose that I'd have to get AT&T to bill me >directly, and not via the local RBOC. >Anyone heard of such a thing? I tried asking the marketing dweeb on >the other end of the AT&T 800 number, but (as expected) he said that >such a card didn't exist. I wish there were a way to deal with uninformed marketing dweebs; the service does indeed still exist, as described in Patrick's note at the end of your post. I live in a graduate residence affiliated with (but not officially part of) the University of Chicago; each resident has her/his own telephone and receives a bill just as any ordinary Illinois Bell customer would. However, each person's account is in the name of "Univ. of Chicago, International House, Room ___" and does not mention the person's name. Nonetheless, I originally asked AT&T for their usual type of calling card for my phone here (the kind which is actually issued through the local telco). They said it would take up to 5 weeks. When it got to be 7 weeks, still no card, I called back and they said they had no record of such a request, but would put through a new one. Many weeks and phone calls down the road, they were *finally* able to confirm that I was not authorized to request a card for this phone since it is not in my name. (In most ways I have the highest regard for AT&T, but this was a little ridiculous.) So they told be to call 1-800-CALLATT and ask to apply for a "non-subscriber calling card," which would be *billed separately by AT&T* and is not linked to any particular telephone number I may have. I'm happy to report that, despite a somewhat disconcerting amount of information required in the application (including parents' names and phone numbers!), I got the card fairly promptly. Best of all, it seems to be a genuinely AT&T-only card: neither MCI nor Sprint will bill calls to it. (The MCI response to this card number is an amusingly pert "Please dial a *valid* card number now.") I haven't tried it on an AOS phone, however. Perhaps the very best thing about it is that I can keep it no matter where I move to in the future, and not have to worry about hassles with getting new numbers for each new local telco I might become a customer of. (This presupposes that I'm willing to use AT&T for all my card-billed inter-LATA calls; that's perfectly fine with me, as long as I can always gain access to AT&T. As we know, some outfits will do their nasty best to deny you such access. It goes without saying that I have no official connection whatever to AT&T.) I only hope they don't discontinue the service; it certainly *is* kept very low-profile. ............................................................................... Richard Duffy | ((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) Internet: zeno@zaphod.uchicago.edu (quote (lambda (x) Voicenet: 312-753-0441 | (list x (list (quote quote) x))))) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #80 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05735; 7 Feb 90 23:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17792; 7 Feb 90 22:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05110; 7 Feb 90 21:17 CST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:35:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #81 BCC: Message-ID: <9002072035.ab07412@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:35:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Will Martin) Re: How To Dial Locally (Daniel A Margolis) Re: Centrex, Everyone? (John G. De Armond) Re: Centrex, Everyone? (John Higdon) Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Vance Shipley) Re: Telco Security? (Bill Darden) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 12:26:22 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls >From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) > ...such fraudulent usage can clearly be traced. Obviously, the voice >recordings can be kept; all the telco or AOS needs to do is listen to >each day's recordings and if a message appears where the person's name >should've been, they can assume the call was made, completed, and >accepted, and bill the receiving phone anyway. I'm sure the >technology exists, or can easily be developed, to allow a playback of >only the rejected calls, so it's a lot less listening. >True, someone may try to "prank" someone else by using an automated >collect phone to leave such a "message", but clearly how many people >who really did try to leave a message instead of their name would do >it again if they were caught? I agree that a consistent pattern of repeated abuse of the "record-a- 'name'" computerized collect-call process would result in the parties being caught and eventually forced to pay for the calls. However, I think it is highly unlikely that random or rare indulgers in this would ever be caught. 1) Given the telco's increasing push for automation, I think it is unlikely they would ever assign a human the task of listening to these recordings, assuming they are actually kept for any length of time. (I really would guess they are recorded on disk or solid-state digital memory and written over again as soon as they are used.) To keep track of the recorded voice along with the billing info would be possible, but would it be considered cost-effective? [What is needed here is the NSA's fabled "monitor all call contents" voice-content-recognition AI program. :-)] 2) They could intermix the automated collect-call processing with a random and rare actual human operator. You'd never know *for sure* that you are talking to a computer or a person (especially as synthezsized voices get better); if you gave a human "I'll be home at 8" as your name, they could then flag the called phone (and the calling one, if not a payphone or hotel phone) for surveillance of the collect-call patterns. They could also give you a severe tongue-lashing, which would take you aback if all you expected was a computerized standard response! :-) However, given point 1, this seems unlikely, unless they assign a human to handle calls from a region of high abuse (airports, train stations, etc.). Since those areas are also ones of high volume, which is what they'd want the computer to handle, it still seems unlikely. 3) There are some legal issues here. Could the telco legally use an accumulation of such recordings, if they *did* keep them, as evidence? Wouldn't they have to get a wiretap authorization and only use such recordings gathered after such a warrant was issued, in order to use these as evidence in a legal case? This starts to sound expensive, and not worth the possible monies that could be recovered. 4) Wrong numbers are not at all unlikely. This acts against BOTH the abuser and the possible telco methods of detecting such abuse. That is one reason I distinguished between occasional vs. repeated use. If I try pulling this trick, and misdial the number, some stranger hears "Will you accept the charges for a collect call from 'I'll be home at 8'?" They are going to say "no" or hang up (unless they are totally crazed). My message to my household did NOT get through, but I don't know this. All I know is the call didn't complete, which is what I expected. In order to have some reasonable chance of assurance that the message REALLY made it to my home, I have to play this game twice, at least. This starts eating up enough time that it might be cheaper in real terms to just pay for the stupid call! On the other side, if the telco tries to stick me with a charge for a call based on their having a recording of a call from a payphone to my number, which I rejected, and where the text was "I'll be home at 8", all I need say is that it was a wrong number. Unless they can show a repeated pattern of such calls, or start playing high-tech games like voiceprinting the message and comparing that voiceprint with those of voices on my line or making calls from my number, there's no way they can claim this is not an isolated instance. After all, the called party did nothing illicit or contra-tarriffs; they just said "no" or hung up! Only the caller can be charged with anything. The telco has a history of charging called numbers in cases of long-distance abuse, like blue boxing and college-student fraud, but there are major differences between billing the called party in cases where the evidence is many many-minute-long calls all to that number, versus cases in which the called party didn't do anything but explicitly reject a call, or just hung up! In short, I don't think the telco will make much effort to counteract this fraud, at least until it can build in enough AI to its computers so that they can make some guess as to what is a "name" versus what is a "message". (And how would they handle foreign languages?) It just isn't likely to repay the effort involved. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 10:20:47 EST From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories John Levine writes: >Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs >that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental >U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates >otherwise. The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the >first decent COCOT ever. This doesn't seem so decent when you consider that you can make the same call for 11.5 cents/minute on nights or weekends with Reach Out America. MCI's Prime Time is probably similar. I would think that most people in Harvard Square (students) make enough calls (at night) to warrant a calling plan. Dan Margolis dam@mtqua.att.com Disclaimer: I don't have anything to do with long distance, except that I pay a bill each month. ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone? Date: 6 Feb 90 17:36:12 GMT Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >This fellow, however, revealed a little telephonic naivety with his >pronouncement. The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone. >Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones; I'm with John on this one. A recent ex-employer of mine left a nice SRX-based PBX and bit the Centrex hook. What we got in return was: a) Very ugly and large phones b) No ability to reconfigure c) Voice mail that answers after X seconds instead of X rings d) No distinctive ring for outside calls (available for large extra fee) e) Extension numbers no longer followed phone sets as in SRX system. f) Disconnecting the phone even for a few minutes (as when one HAS to get some work done.) results in killing the line and dropping a trouble report. We did this a lot :-) g) GREATLY reduced reliability. Every contractor who decided to target the trunk for the day took us out. h) A new and large bureauracy to work through to get anything done. i) No call-waiting beep (available for large extra fee.). Callers get dumped to voice mail. (I HATE voice mail.) To me, Centrex violates one of the most basic business principles - never entrust a strategic resource to an outside concern. You are courting disaster if you do. Small example - whereas with the SRX system, a trunk outage would kill outside lines only, with Centrex, even intra-company calls are killed. This creates a general level of chaos. BTW, I spent some time talking to the Southern Bell installers while they destroyed a perfectly good system, er, I mean, installed the Centrex wiring. They did NOT install any mux or control equipment. They ran a fiber-optic cable from the CO to our building and simply piled all the lines onto it. Centrex may be OK for Pat's house but it really sucks for businesses. John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress- Radiation Systems, Inc. | men than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. emory!rsiatl!jgd | - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA** ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone? Date: 6 Feb 90 09:50:48 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon John Higdon writes: [big flames about Centrex] > [Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. How did I know this was coming? :-) > Mr. Higdon is > wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service > called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their > own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take > effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them. That's fine for IBT customers, but it's Pac*Bell that has those ubiquitous ads. To my knowledge Pac*Bell has no such service and if they do, it is only for their gigantic customers, you know, the ones that could buy and sell their own phone company anyway, and don't need Centrex. > The control pair zips ahead of the call with a message for > the gizmo saying 'the call arriving on pair 96 is really someone who > dialed extension 2037' or similar. Likewise the gizmo takes outgoing > calls, finds a pair, and on the control line tells the CO 'the call I > am giving you on pair 127 came from extension 2481. Very clever and > effecient. Gee, that sounds like DID. But what about the "best part of Centrex" (as the Pac*Bell ads trumpet) is that *all* of the equipment is in Pacific Bell's office? If you are going to have a (switch?) piece of equipment at your own location that isn't CPE, then it sounds like the days of "call the phone company and have a phone system put in here." I have a client with an ITT3100. It has been long since paid for. It has given them no trouble. I can make config changes all day long at no charge (I'm on retainer for their broadcast facility and throw in phones as a bonus.) The switch does ARS, DID, is perfectly expandable, and completely reliable. All trouble calls have involved a bad trunk (Centrex *never* fails -- sure, it's nothing but trunks!) and have required a call to Pac*Bell, anyway. > While CPE is fine for some people, centrex is great for > the rest of us. PT] I have Commstar II on all of my residence lines, for the record. And behind that is my KX-T1232. The "Centrex" is more for toy value than anything else. I have 16 phones in the house; I would never dream of having that many lines (nor would I probably be able to get them). John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone? Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 06:49:57 GMT In article <3560@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone. >Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones; >those with soft keys, visual confirmation, and multiple lines. Display >phones are not available with Centrex. Just the simple (for a PBX) >feature of having the callers name appear in the display would require >some permutation of Caller-ID through the CO! How do you access >features on Centrex? You flash the hookswitch, dial the code, hope it >works. There is no visual confirmation. This will probably not be the first response to point out that Centrex can and does (Northern Telecom DMS at least) allow for ALL these features and many, many more! >[Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. Pure and >... >wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service >called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their >own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take >effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them. This is very interesting. Do you have any more details? - why does it take "a few hours" to effect changes? - is it really an automated order entry, one that recieves priority scheduling (gets typed into the switch by a human based on your requests)? - is it a feature of the switch? - or is it a "front end" application that provides a user interface on one side and programs the switch on the other? Does any one know of the availability of Call Detail Recording on Centrex? If so how does it work? Is it batched or real time? Vance Shipley [Moderator's Note: The service order changes handled via Centrex Mate are batched with all other changes, and put into effect sometime around three in the morning when all other changes for the day are done. Its like when you call the service rep now: the order is taken and you are told it will be 'turned on sometime tomorrow', but almost invariably is on when you wake up the next day. The rep types it in, but it does not literally start at that point. Centrex Mate works with a terminal and a modem; the customer dials an extension on his premises which really is an OPX, or off premises extension which terminates in the CO itself. Admittedly, Centrex Mate is only used by very, very, very large Centrex customers. Did you know Amoco Oil Company, which is headquartered here, gets billings from Illinois Bell for about one million dollars *per month* on local service and equipment only? Its an 8000-line Centrex; the CO (Chicago-Lakeshore) is in the third sub-basement of the Amoco Building itself. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Bill Darden" Subject: Re: Telco Security? Date: 6 Feb 90 23:14:37 GMT Reply-To: Bill Darden Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA In article <3536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?> Hinsdale! Besides, it's on your nickle, so why not. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #81 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08059; 8 Feb 90 0:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26330; 7 Feb 90 23:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17792; 7 Feb 90 22:21 CST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 21:26:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #82 BCC: Message-ID: <9002072126.ac24715@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 90 21:25:45 CST Volume 10 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller ID in Canada (Blake McCraw) AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Jim Gottlieb) Question About AT&T Dimension 2000 Telephone Set (Brian Reid) X12 and EDI (Howard P. Marvel) Re: Centrex, Everyone? (David Daniel) Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Chris Johnson) Telco Inside Wire Insurance (Tad Cook) Apartments and Inside Wiring (Hobbit) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Caller ID in Canada Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 00:23:21 EST From: Blake Mccraw I know that you didn't want to hear much about Caller-ID, but there hasn't been much information regarding the situation on this topic in Canada. I was at a seminar type of thing at the Inn on the Park last night. There was a meeting of all the major (?) customers of a computer distributor named Ingram. There was a guy from Bell Canada there who gave a speech about the future of Bell's so-called digital platform technology. I am presuming that this means fibre optics and all the nifty computer-based gadgetry that it entails. He spoke of ISDN and a system similar to the old Telidon terminals called ALEX that has already been implemented in Montreal and/or Ottawa. After having a few of the ol' vino's, I cornered the guy and quizzed him about Caller-ID (which in Canada will fall under the title of "Call Management"). Either he was very good at being evasive or he really didn't know what the situation was. More likely, he was victim of a condition of Bell Canada of which he was not too pleased to be informed: the compartmentalization of information that is essential for any conglomorate of its size in order to maintain its operational level of consumer misinformation. He did however confirm to me that there were no plans to provide any mechanism by which one could curtail the distribution of one's telephone number just by placing an outgoing call. I didn't press him for details regarding any possible public hearings or even soliciting the public's opinion on the topic for fear of totally wearing out what little welcome I had left with which to question the fellow. He had no idea whether Northern Telecom would be distributing any devices other than the basic phone that would display the incoming number. I also surveyed the representatives of the various modem manufacturers: none had any idea of any plans for a device for intercepting digitally the incoming phone number. If I was any way energetic I would figure out how to make and manufacture one myself. blake@xrtll Clascom Computers, 80 Richmond St. W. Toronto, Ontario M5H 2A4 Voice: (416) 369-9944 Fax: (416) 369-9786 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought Date: 7 Feb 90 07:59:22 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In looking for a PBX that offers CPC on analog ports and the ability to send long touch-tones from electronic sets, I find that I am left looking at only one switch for my application: the AT&T System 25. But I feel funny about buying a switch that I have never used, since a lot of the look-and-feel of using a particular PBX can not be conveyed in a brochure. The un-shoulderable handset bothers me for instance. So I am looking for any experiences, good or bad, from an end-user or administrative point of view. Thanks... P.S. AT&T, in another display of their marketing savvy, has not returned any of my calls regarding the purchase of this switch. ------------------------------ From: Brian Reid Subject: Question About AT&T Dimension 2000 Telephone Set Date: 6 Feb 90 21:25:59 GMT Organization: DEC Western Research I'd like to ask a fairly detailed technical question about the operation of the AT&T Dimension 2000 telephone system that I see for sale in my local AT&T store. I see no reason to clutter the bandwidth of this newsgroup with the question and its answer. Is there anybody out there who would be willing to answer for me (via private electronic mail) a question about the technology of this instrument? Brian Reid reid@decwrl.dec.com ------------------------------ From: Howard P Marvel Subject: X12 and EDI Date: 7 Feb 90 02:10:48 GMT Reply-To: Howard P Marvel Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science I am looking for information on the content of the X12 standard for Business Data Interchange and the extent of the use of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange for business transactions) in the U.S. and elsewhere. I am particularly interesting in information about the relative importance of EDI in Japanese business as opposed to U.S. business and whether Japanese EDI uses a standard such as ANSI X12. The reason for the posting on comp.dcom.telecom is that the policy issues associated with EDI seem similar to those arising with throughout the telecommunications swamp. Some examples: When two business partners wish to communicate but are subscribers to different carriers, apparently each must pay a fee to its own carrier as if the entire transaction took place on a single carrier. We have the access charge problem. There is the natural monopoly problem. And so on. At a minimum, can anyone point me to the newsgroups appropriate for such queries? Thanks in advance. Howard P. Marvel Professor of Economics The Ohio State University marvel@cis.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ From: tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone? Date: 7 Feb 90 08:24:19 GMT Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Both Mr. Higdon and our Moderator make excellent points re: CPE vrs. Centrex. The make or break point is the customer taking the time to fully delineate and understand his needs before choosing between the two. As a telecomm sales rep, I'm perfectly willing to explore either scenario with a client or prospect. Tone Commander makes a nice piece of equipment (the name of which has just scaped me!) that is designed to be a full featured Centrex console. It received good reviews in The Jan. '90 issue of TELECONNECT. Customer education is the key to the proper decision. (but ain't that the way it's ALWAYS been?). "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?" Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) Date: 5 Feb 90 17:11:21 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <3437@accuvax.nwu.edu> ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 69, message 3 of 10 > _I_ write: >> And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing >> telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene >> profits. As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to >> insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary >> for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be >> the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are. But in >> the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin, >> Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10 >> most profitable corporation list, year after year? Uh huh -- all of >> the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc. >> Something is definitely fishy with that situation. >for anyone -- you don't 'deserve' to earn any more." U.S. West -- which >serves the "upper Midwest" -- has at least $20 billion of invested >capital in telephone plant. If you want investors to continue to put >up money, you have to "pay" them at least what they can earn in >comparable investments, or about $2 - 2.5 billion per year. The total >amount of profits is not the right measure of whether the phone >companies are earning too much: it's the rate of return on the >invested capital which you want to look at. I don't know what U.S. >West's rate of return is, and I won't defend it, but it's absurd to >say any company is earning "too much" money simply by looking at their >total profits. You can't tell whether it's too much until you look at >how much the investors had to put up in order to earn those profits. Well, I could, I suppose, be generous and assume your comments were meant for other readers who you might suspect as being financially naive when it comes to the corporate world. But I'm in a rather nasty mood, so I'll point out that not only was I well aware of what return on investment is and its importance, but that the people who did the ranking for the Upper Midwest companies were even more aware of it. After all, that's their exact business. It ought to have been obvious, although I suppose I could have stated it more clearly by assuming their were people who might not know better, that the ranking was not by pure dollars of profit. That would make it pretty hard for any but the largest companies to ever make the list. No, as is typical for such lists, the ranking was determined by both profit returned per share of stock, and by percentage of gross revenues. Now, it's true that neither is an exact correlation to return on capital equipment, but that's irrelevant to the investors who bought the stock, since all they care about is the return on the money they spent on that stock. And the first measure I mentioned does that quite nicely. Furthermore, getting into the return on capital equipment argument is just opening a whole 'nother can of worms: many investor-owned regulated utilities engage in a practive of over-building, of over-investing in capital equipment purely for the reason of forcing the regulating body for the state to allow them to raise their rates. Now, I rather doubt that Northern States Power has gotten away with much of this, since their rates are among the lowest in the nation, although they do have a pair of very expensive nuclear power plants. But I know for a fact that an Illinois power company just recently spent some time (in court, perhaps) defending itself against such charges. They've built way over needed capacity. To say nothing of cost over-runs on actual needed capacity that just about any utility could probably get away with. I really don't know the specifics of Northwestern Bell nee U.S. West with regards to how much capital equipment they own and how much they really need. But, they have been involved in a lot of accusations of bribery and conflict of interest lobbying with the Public Utilities Comission. Furthermore, the State Attorney General of Minnesota just won a class action suit against them for excessive rates, and they now have to pay the consumers back something on the order of $30 million. Obviously, and it damn well ought to be obvious, if a U.S. West unit was guilty of that size of fraud, they are not as pure as the driven snow. And it's been pretty obvious to me as a consumer: when I moved here in 1979, my basic monthly rate was something like $7.97 a month. Within a month or two, it changed to $9.xx a month. There after, every year or two, it went up another $2.5x+, until my basic rate, even though I live in a cheaper zone (one tier closer to downtown), is presently about $21.xx a month. Inflation has not been double-digit the last 10 years, by any means! Meanwhile, friends and family in other US West areas, like Mountain Bell, continued to have much lower rates. It's hard for me to generate much sympathy for regulated monopolies. If the businesses don't like the restraints on their trade, rates, profits, whatever, then they can get the hell out of the regulated monopoly and into a "free" market. They are regulated precisely because society has decided that those services are critical necessities in our culture to which everyone is entitled at as low a cost as is feasible. Investor owned utilities are only one way of providing that service, but through their power, money and lobbying, they've gotten most people convinced that they are the only way and thus have been also able to get away with making large fortunes at it. Having once been a member of a consumer owned utility (often called coops), I know it does not have to be that way. Do a little reading on the Rural Electrification Act. Read about Lyndon Johnson and the Sad Irons to get an idea what rural life was like before they were allowed to have electricity like the city-folk. Uh huh, those investor owned utilities did not want to run their lines out into the country, were the number of customers per mile of wire made it a lot less lucrative. The point is, I don't think it's wise for the consumer public to trust their regulated utilities any further than they have to. They need to ride herd on them all the time, question all their investments, plans, rates and other financials. We've seen ample evidence in this newsgroup alone of lots of underhanded schemes designed to bilk the consumers of money to gain large profits. I'm not saying they are all corrupt to the core, nor am I saying they are all doing a lousy job. But to be complacent is to be stupid. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Telco Inside Wire Insurance Date: 6 Feb 90 06:43:41 GMT Organization: very little I can't make a call to US West for a network problem anymore without getting the "Line Backer" pitch first. Even on trouble with my residential Centrex service that is obviously a CO problem, they always try to sell me their sleazy insurance first. It is hyped with all kinds of scare talk about how the problem might be in my phone, and if it is, they will charge me big bucks unless I buy their insurance now! I have even had them try to sell it to ME when I am reporting a problem for SOMEONE ELSE, where I have gone to their protector and verified that there is not voltage on the incoming line with the inside wire disconnected! Calls to the PUC brought a lot less response than I have gotten with COCOT complaints....I was told to complain to the telco repair rep's supervisor (!), as if the rep was somehow NOT following company policy! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:57:05 EST From: *Hobbit* Subject: Apartments and Inside Wiring When NJB here first started letting customers shoulder the burden of inside wire maintenance, I was just moving into an apartment building. An afternoon of running around with a butt set allowed me to tell them "I'll maintain it", but with crawling around in the basement and the attic it was a bit of a pain. I like to do that sort of thing, so it would have been a much *grander* pain for most other folks. Not to mention that some buildings really do keep their phone closets locked. It was a two-story affair, and the wiring took the form of six pairs looped from the box up through one wall shared by the upstairs and downstairs, down through another shared wall, and everything terminated in the *attic*, under the fiberglass, with those horrible little white crimp-on connectors. At least they left sufficient room for expansion, because my roomie and I had three pairs between us. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #82 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08385; 8 Feb 90 1:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26330; 7 Feb 90 23:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17792; 7 Feb 90 22:21 CST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:11:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #83 BCC: Message-ID: <9002072211.ab12096@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:10:14 CST Volume 10 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (Ken Thompson) Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding (Chip Rosenthal) Re: Breaking the Dial Tone (John Higdon) Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (John McHarry) Re: "Sleaze" (Dave Levenson) Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Kelly Goen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? Date: 7 Feb 90 16:02:41 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS Here is a circuit that works to indicate a phone line is on hook. Mount the led that lights in a conveniently visible location. |\ | <---------+-------| >|-----+-----'\/\/\/\/`-----+ | |/ | | 22k | | led | | to phone | | | line | | /| | | (green/red) +-------|< |-----+ | (L1/L2) | \| | led | | | <-----------------------------------------------+ This is for information only. No one is encouraged to actually use the circuit. No warranty expressed or implied. Not liable for any direct, consequential, or incidental loss or damage. This circuit has not been certified as complying with Part 68 of FCC regs. WARNING: Telephone circuitry contains potentially lethal voltages. No user serviceable parts inside. Refer all repairs, adjustments and modifications of any equipment to qualified service personnel. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 18:22:18 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins In v10i68 Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) said: -> Uncertainty over the city code here; phone number copied from pay -> phone at Daventry service area (on motorway between Liverpool and -> London): (03272) 78284 (Elsewhere, I saw city code as 0327 and even as -> 032? 03272 seems to be indicated, for the length standardization.) UK area codes are currently of varying length. Here is a list of the area code/subscriber number combinations. In the following N=2..9; M=0,2..9 (no digit 1); X=0..9. EEE=NXX, EE=NX. i) The major metropolitan areas have codes of the form 0N1 (except 01 which becomes 071/081 in May 1990). The complete number is then given as 0N1-EEE XXXX (e.g. 061-434 0000 could be a Manchester number) where EEE is the exchange (CO) number. 434 is a Withington exchange. ii) All the other areas have area codes of the form 0NMX. The complete number is 0NMX-EEXXXX (e.g. 0602-810000 could be a Nottingham number) where EE is the exchange number. 81 is a West Bridgford exchange. Those two are the main form of UK 'phone numbers. Some of the exchanges have not be modernised, though, and this gives rise to two sub-classes of class ii) numbers: iii) Some numbers have the normal class ii) length area code and a shorter subscriber number (usually 5 digits instead of 6). iv) Other numbers have a longer area code and a shorter subscriber number. Thus the exchange part of the number is actually included in the area code, and can be 1 or 2 digits (I think). This leads to area code lengths of 5 or 6 digits and they are not normally written as one string of digits but as three digits and then the rest, e.g. 032 733, 029 12 (Chepstow). This leads to some multiple area codes like 0327 (Daventry), 032 733 (Paulerspury) and 032 736 (Preston Capes) which are actually exchanges 33 and 36 of 0327. These last two codes only apply to 3 figure subscriber codes and the full 6 digit numbers are now part of the Daventry code. This is the way numbers are changed into 4 figure area codes when the exchanges are modernised. -> I could not find a phone book for Gatwick, only for London. -> Pay phones at Gatwick (city code 0293); note the differing -> lengths: -> 34352 31633 (these two were in gate 17) -> 511453 512600 519582 22241 30250 30620 35295 -> 512770 511452 519581 517907 17906 517905 517908 -> 511641 (17906 is an invalid number so I presume it is actually 517906) Using the above explanation this means that 51 exchange has been modernised but the 22, 30, 31, 34 and 35 exchanges are still of the older variety. This, of course, being within the Crawley area code (0293) which also serves Gatwick Airport. I hope that clears things up. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding Date: 7 Feb 90 23:51:32 GMT Reply-To: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) In article <3540@accuvax.nwu.edu> scott@audiofax.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 77, message 2 of 5 >I need to fiddle with some u-Law encoded numbers [...] I have a couple of >FINE, FINE references that describe the stuff and promptly give examples that >have the sign switched from each other. I think I know what the confusion might be over. In the theoretical mu-law companding system, there is an inversion at the very end. Therefore, in the encoding sequence, you use 0 for positive and 1 for negative, but just before transmission you invert the whole thing. For example, the maximum positive value will be encoded as 0111 1111. After inversion this becomes 1000 0000. If you are generating digital data to pump into a codec/filter combo (or similar) circuit, then you would want to perform the inversion and make sure the MSB ends up 1 for positive and 0 for negative values. A-law gets even wierder, because you invert every other bit. Personally, my favorite reference is |Digital Telephony| by Bellamy. However, if you want the nuts-n-bolts, I suggest you get a databook from somebody who makes codec's and take a gander at that. I happen to have National Semiconductor and Motorola books on my shelf, but there are a gadzillion other folks who make them as well. Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Breaking the Dial Tone Date: 6 Feb 90 02:08:14 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> writes: > phone gives three short beeps (there's probably a name for this signal > but I'm sort of