Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28963; 8 Mar 90 2:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26234; 8 Mar 90 0:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24761; 7 Mar 90 23:53 CST Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:06:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #151 BCC: Message-ID: <9003072306.ab15850@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:05:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Torsten Lif) ISDN Courses/Training Questions (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez) Re: Real Useability of Applications Over Slower Communications (Merriman) Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) (Jeffri H. Frontz) Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal (Peter da Silva) Strange Charges on Bill (Jesse W. Asher) The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Henry Mensch) Wroooong Number (Dan'l DanehyOakes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions Date: 7 Mar 90 09:10:53 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Lif Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article <4671@accuvax.nwu.edu> jason@cnd.hp.com (Jason Zions) writes: >Okay, so a B channel is raw 64kb/s. Is there any way to signal, >end-to-end, the higher-level meaning imposed on those bits? For >example, if I attach a Fax machine to an ISDN line and place a call, >can the receiving end get some indication on the D channel that the >incoming call is facsimile? Yes. "Bearer capability" and other signal elements tell the CO and the receiving party what the nature of this call is. The CO needs to know so that it can choose an appropriate link and/or conversion (phone calls *may* be routed via analog trunks, datacomm may *not*. Phone connections *may* need a-law-u-law conversion [if international], datacomm should not be converted). The receiving party needs to know so that only compatible equipment responds to the call. For datacomm with rate adaption the two sets of end equipment can even "negotiate" to find a "common denominator" - a speed and/or standard which they can both handle. >If I place a call through ISDN, I understand that the dialing >information goes across the D channel to do call setup and all that >other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information end-to-end >through D channel? Yes. You have "user-user info", a signal element alolowing you to send data to the other party over the D-channel during setup *and* during the call. You can also have D-channel connections for low-speed data without using any B-channel. For low-volume long-time connections this is an excellent feature. Your burglar alarm can have a *permanent* link to the security company. A few bytes when appropriate will tell them when a window has been broken. If the link goes down they get an alert and if they can't bring it up again within a certain time they go out to see what's wrong. Not fool-proof, certainly, but quite possibly better than what's available today. Actually, with ISDN, the problem is no longer "how to get the info through" but "how to handle all the info that comes". You get litterally swamped in information and the hard part is to know in which order to process it to choose the appropriate actions and what can be safely ignored because of what you already know. What is redundant for this type of call and what only *seems* to be redundant but carries some additional meaning which only applies once every alternate leap year but nevertheless must be taken into consideration? >The idea would be that the 2B+D line gets plugged >into a really smart box. When a call comes in, the smart box knows >what data is about to come in on the B channel; fax, voice, data, slow >video, etc. It then connect the B channel to the appropriate device >(if present) or rejects the call (if there's no such device present). That's not quite the intention of the designers (I think) but it would work if you wanted to build it. The intent of the design (as I see it) is that every ISDN device has its' own protocol handling and communicates with the CO independently of all others. The device (phone, terminal adapter ["modem"] or whatever) knows what capabilities it has and responds to calls matching that. Other (non-compatible) devices on the same line remain silent. A phone would only respond to calls indicating "voice" or "phone". Depending on if the phone is multi- or single- standard it may be able to handle both a-law and u-law or just the one of them. A TA (Terminal Adapter) is really a sort of temporary solution to replace your modem until all computers have plug-in ISDN cards. Until then you may have TAs of different "flavours" for different purposes and they may be more or less "smart" and thus able to handle calls differently. Anything a TA can do, an ISDN-adapted computer (or other end-equipment) can do better, except possibly that your TA might have several output connections and choose which one of them to use depending on the type of call, in which case we have your "smart box". This is still a temporary solution as I see it, since the protocol handling is "just" silicon and will soon be cheap enough to put in all equipment. Otherwise your "smart box" would have to be able to handle *both* B-channels and all the various D- channel connections with all combinations and variations of "busy" depending on which devices are already in use. This is normally handled by the "setup" conversation carried on directly between the end device and the CO. A "smart box" acting between them would have to be *very* smart to avoid being a bottleneck and impede communications instead of helping them. Your fax will in the future plug directly into the ISDN line and will respond by itself to incoming calls saying "fax". If you have a PC or workstation with ISDN interface and many emulation programmes it can recognize the type of incoming call and act accordingly. A fax call would go to the fax emulation software which stores it on your disk and/or dumps it to the printer. A "vanilla" data connection might get a pseudo-tty and "login:" prompt. For more secure data links the CNI feature may be used for auto- call-back if the caller belongs to the internal list of allowed users. The possibilities of plugging ISDN straight into a multi-processing computer are staggering and with a "large" number of pseudo-devices you don't have to worry about running out of cables. :-) Torsten Lif (formerly Dahlkvist) ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: ISDN Courses/Training Questions Date: 7 Mar 90 16:30:23 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hi there! A few people in my department are looking at training alternatives on ISDN. Our background is primarily on software engineering research, and we are interested in the data communications programming aspects of ISDN. So far, we have found information on a couple of courses, described below: o Introduction to ISDN, Learning Tree International (800) 421-8166, Gordon Beattie (instructor), 4 days; and o An Intensive Introduction to ISDN, Data-Tech Institute, (201) 478-5400, Jim Davis (instructor), 2 days. The questions are: is anyone aware of any other alternatives? Has anyone in the net taken any of the courses above? If so, what is your opinion about the course contents, as well as the proficiency of the instructor? Please reply be email. Thanks. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez + + + GTE Laboratories, Inc. + Tel: (617) 466-2584 + + MS-46 + email: jdiaz@gte.com + + 40 Sylvan Rd. + + + Waltham, MA 02254 + + + + + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: merriman@ccavax.camb.com Subject: Re: Real Useability of Applications over Slower Communications Date: 7 Mar 90 17:19:11 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <4790@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dap@compsci.aberystwyth.ac.uk (Dave Price) writes: > I am interested in gathering experiences/references of people's > reactions of the useability of applications over slower networks. In > particular I wish to consider the types of applications we all happily > use over fast LANs, but running over (say) 4800 bits/sec through 64 K > bits/sec upto a couple of megabits/sec. In the VAX/VMS/DECnet world, I have had no trouble working between systems connected by slow, flakey circuits. Applications include file transfer, message switching, remote login, etc. I remember working the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul for a US client where we had three circuits back to New York: a 56kb (or maybe 64kb) satellite circuit, a 9600 bps synchronous circuit via a new lease circuit and a 2400 bps asynchronous circuit, via all kinds of old multiplexor circuits, through Japan, the Middle East and eastern Europe, already part of the clients permanent network. The most reliable of the lot was the 2400 async circuit! The satellite circuit was practically useless. The only thing I found troublesome is using full-screen editors via remote login. It is usually better to run an editing session on a local system and have the editor open the file remotely. Five or six years ago I was working on a job that had about 10 remote PDP-11 traffic concentrators around the U. S. running RSX-11/S. They booted fine from the home office over 1200bps (and even 300 bps dial backup) circuits. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 15:54:23 EST From: Jeffri H Frontz Subject: Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio In article <4730@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >>["break" never breaks an "if", only "switch"es, "do"s, and "while"s.] >If this is the real bug did anyone else notice that lint would have >caught it? Which version of lint? The four versions that I tried (UTS 5.2.6b lint, 5ESS's nlint, Pyramid's bsd lint, and Pyramid's att lint) said nothing about potential problems resulting from a break within an "if". Jeff Frontz Work: +1 614 860 2797 AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356) Cornet: 353-2797 att!jeff.frontz jeff.frontz@att.com ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 12:52:32 GMT > Bell Canada expects to start the Alex system up in Toronto at the end > of April. This is basically a line that can be called via modem to > access a variety of "service providers" that are online. It works with > the NAPLPS videotext format to transmit data and diagrams. Sounds like SourceLine, which is a service Southwestern Bell tried to make a go of down here in Houston. Remember the stuff a while back about SWBell versus BBS operators? That was Ma trying to kill off her competition. They just gave up on SourceLine and left the field to U.S.Videotel. Whether any of their associated lawsuits and rate change stuff with the PUC follow it into the bit-bucket is another question. _--_|\ 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: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 4 Mar 90 23:48:38 GMT Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" Organization: Dynasys: Consulting for the Future. I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight answer from the phone company. Can anyone tell me what the "Federal Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay it? Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: {uunet,fedeva,rayo}!dynasys!jessea [Moderator's Note: The FCC charge is made to compensate your local telco for revenue lost when the long-distance 'separations and settlements' method of compensation from AT&T was discontinued. For many decades, the charges for long distance calls were kept higher than necessary, with much of the revenue going back to subsidize local phone service. AT&T paid this to the local telco each month. It was decided that long distance callers should not have to subsidize the local telcos, so AT&T quit paying 'settlements' to the telcos, and eventually the cost of long distance calls came down. In the meantime, the local telcos complained they were losing money on the 'free rides' people got between the local central office and the nearest long distance office of the chosen carrier. This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of divestiture does; but them's the breaks. The "Inside Wire Maintainence Charge" you do not have to pay. Its like an insurance policy which says when anything goes wrong with the wires inside your house once every fifty years or so, the local telco will repair it for free. If you do not pay this, then if anything goes wrong with the wire once it enters your premises, YOU have to fix it. Again, this is a product of divestiture and modern ideas about how to run a telephone company. You should be able to call the business office and tell them you don't want this 'protection'. Generally speaking, you can ignore the horror stories they will use to convince you to keep it. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 15:22:10 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu From: John Higdon Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party for the number he was dialing! One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at random. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / [Moderator's Note: I had a lady turn me in once for giving her a modem tone when she was trying to call Ruthie's Restaurant, a defunct business place which did not pay its bills. My second line is their old number from years ago. For people like her, I'd *love* to have Caller*ID so I could demonstrate what getting your number polluted beyond further use is all about. :) What evil lurks in the heart of the Moderator? Only the Shadow Knows! har har har! PT] ------------------------------ From: Dan'l DanehyOakes Subject: Wroooong Number Date: 7 Mar 90 22:26:40 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA John Higdon wrote about the Dedicated Wrong Number Telephone User. (I'm glad to know you get dedicated ones, mine all seem to be timeshared.) Check out a magazine called RE/SEARCH. They recently did an issue on practical jokes, and one of the interviewees explained what to do when you get a wrong number caller... "Never waste a wrong number," he said. When the party at the other end asks for someone you've never heard of -- say, Rapoport -- here's what you do. "Hi, is Rapoport there?" "I'll go check. May I ask who's calling?" "Tufnertz." "Okay, just a minute." Put the phone down and walk away. Let your footsteps be heard walking off. Then walk back. "Hey, listen, Rapoport won't come to the phone. He says he's still very mad at you and doesn't want to talk about it." ...It works like a charm. I've tried this several times now, and I've *never* had one of these guys call me back! When are you Cosmic cowboys gonna get it through your head? I'll be mellow when I'm dead! I'll be mellow when I'm dead! I'll be mellow when I'm dead! -- Al Yankovic Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #151 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01580; 8 Mar 90 3:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13262; 8 Mar 90 2:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26234; 8 Mar 90 0:57 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 0:31:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #152 BCC: Message-ID: <9003080031.ab07873@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 00:30:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cable Companies Versus Telcos (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Edward S. Sachs) Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Gary W. Sanders) Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX (Cathy Kearns) Vista United Followup (John Bruner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Commenting in part on the message from: "Bill B40417 2-7390 " (BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?) In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 issue 134 Patrick Townson writes: > [Moderator's Note: It appears your local cable company has convinced > your local telco they should be allowed to use an 'equal access' 10xxx > code as though they were a telco. Although it sounds like a clever > idea, I can't help but object in principle to this mis-use of the numbering > scheme. I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware > of it, or gave permission for it. PT] In fact, you can expect your local cable TV company to become another of the interlopers on the "monopoly" of your 'friendly neighborhood phone company.' Today, in _every_ local cable system passing your house, the vast majority of the spectrum below 50 megahertz is unused. That capacity is enough for upwards of 30,000 plain old dial phone lines passing every house in town. The technology to use it is not difficult to figure out, and even though your local Cable TV "expert," either the one with the chino trousers and toolbelt or the IROC (Idiot Right Out of College) in the local office understands their function only to be purveyors of prurient rock videos to the masses, you can bet the HQ of the Cable TV Empire knows it. (Think there aren't Cable TV Empires? Learn about the cable TV acronym "MSO." It stands for "Multi-System Operator." About a half-dozen of them own hundreds of Cable TV systems all over the nation. They pay upwards of $3,000 per subscriber to buy cable systems, when the going price for a Telco is about $1,700 per subscriber, with far more capital plant investment and real current revenue in a Telco.They _must_ be buying to do _something_ more than sell you 30 or 60 channels of TV for $35 a month! What is that "something?" It's coming clear it will be a dial tone imported from a local Telco outside the territory of your current one. The groundwork is already laid, clear through Federal Appeals courts in which Arco Oil just outside Dallas imports the dial tone of Southwestern Bell from Dallas into GTE of Texas territory. You can betcha when Arco put those channels on a private microwave out of frustration with GTE, SWBT even joined in the action to "protect the franchise area" of its apparent 'brother of the cloth', GTE. But, Arco took up the cudgel in the courts, arguing that dial tone gets used to make _interstate_ connections, thus its provision and use in such ways is _beyond_ the purview of state regulation. Next stop, if any: the Supreme Court, and it is doubtful the Telcos want Tom Brokaw to tell you about their certain loss if they take it there. Reason: Somehow, the message of the FCC commissioners, that was even printed by some, saying that now they had broken the interstate monopoly, it was time to break the local monopoly, has been buried. It is _no_real_secret_ that the Feds want you to have a _number_ of choices in local telecommunications. What do we see happening? Add up all the bits you have seen and notice it as part of that big picture: 1.) The Cable TV potential to give you a dial tone; 2.) The FCC mandating both a "wireline" _and_ a "non-wireline" cellular company in every area; 3.) The attempt of the FCC to foster opening of "Digital Termin- ation Services" (DTS) and "Digital Electronic Messaging Services" (DEMS) that went begging for use, so the FCC gave the frequencies away (a premature attempt on the part of Government to encourage "bypass" of the local Telco); 4.) The emergence of "Alternative Access Carriers" (AACs) as characterized by the duplicate actions of Metropolitan Fiber Optics and Teleport in 20+ cities, as well as lesser know ones like Intermedia in Florida, building fiber in the streets, subway tunnels and other innovative rights- of way ... now demanding the local Telco be ordered by the Feds to interconnect with them and even let _them_ be the bearers of dial tone to your premises; 5.) The boom in VSATs, with no real minimum distance limit or restriction against being used across town; 6.) The looming flood of PCNs, CLANs, "Telepoints" and such, all clamoring for scarce 900 Mhz spectrum space just now; and 7.) NASA's work in PASS -Personal Access Satellite Systems - a technology to use the (present) upper reaches of the radio spectrum 30 gigahertz for you to get a dial tone directly from 23,000 miles in space. All of these represent cracks in the monopoly of your "local telephone monopoly" that the Feds have used or will use to give you more choices. They will _all_ need a "10xxx code" some day. What shows that _some_ understand this is discussions now underway to find a way to expand the "10xxx" numbering system past its present 999 number limit. So, Cable TV getting "10xxx codes"? Sure, and probably plenty of others, too. (The preceding is Chapter 22 from an upcoming book tentatively titled, "Things your local Mom Telco will never tell you." Anybody out there ready to front me the advance money on it ... or is it still too Jules Verne-like for you to believe it could ever happen? The difference is: It is _already_ happening! Just open your view and connect all the events together!) Readressing the end of the issue raised: >I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware >of it, or gave permission for it. - PT You betcha, Pat. It couldn't happen otherwise, because Bellcore is the Official Keeper of the Book of 10xxx Codes. If you take one and they don't agree, they can issue it to somebody they recognize and get all the Telcos in the nation to route your traffic to whomever Bellcore decides to give that code to. For all we might castigate common carriers for, stupidity of that level is not something I would accuse them of. Now, to address Bill's question about the non-participation of the cellular companies in all this: >I wish that cellular phone companies would use the equal access 10xxx >for "roaming" within LATA's. It would seem a cleaner interface than >the current "roaming" number you have to prefix your calls with." You're quite right, Bill. It is extremely logical. However, that is the flaw. Logic does _not_ guide the highly-political way in which these various technologies get employed. The beaurocrats said that the "10xxx" scheme was intended for INTER-Lata calling, and since the cellular business is of course, INTR-Lata common carriage, they are not privileged to be part of that numbering scheme. No, rather, we have an entirely separate complex that employs a different group of IROCs to enter into "negotiations" for business deals for roamers around the country. It's made a better form of full employment than FDR could ever have dreamed up in the National Reconstruction Act (have to be sure people understand _which_ NRA we talk about here) era. After all, why use a logical piece of technology when you can confound the whole matter with "finanz-politik" as I imagine the Germans would say it. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, *fl MCIMail dkimberlin; ATTMail !dkimberlin [Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually have a buyer. Guess who! Pacific Telesis, that's who! Yes, one of the first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of PacTel is being created to run things here. PT] ------------------------------ From: Edward S Sachs Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! Date: 6 Mar 90 13:47:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL In article <4709@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > That sure rings a bell! We had some UNIX training here by contract > with Western Electric back many years ago. We still have the special > WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to > us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be > incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring > binders, these look ordinary from the outside, but are sure different > inside! The instructor mumbled something about it being a way to > prevent employees from stealing supplies to use at home or give to > their kids at school. Somehow I think the extra costs of having > special products designed and produced for WE would far exceed the > amount lost through employee petty theft if they used ordinary > commercial products... :-) Just to bring times up to date a bit -- AT&T went to standard 3-ring binders about 8 years ago (I guess the special order 4 ring jobs were getting too expensive). However, for many years, we ordered special paper punched with seven (count-em, 7) holes, to fit both the old and the new binders. About a year or so ago, apparently because of the difficulties in procuring the special order 7-hole paper, it exists no more, and we now get the standard issue three hole stuff. I've had to discard many serviceable 4 ring binders and replace them with 3 ringers because it was too much trouble to repunch papers. I still have my 7-hole punch (a 3 hole job to which I added four additional punch heads -- they used to stock the extra punch heads along with the punches in the stockroom). Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL att!ihlpb!essachs, e.s.sachs@att.com ------------------------------ From: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 7 Mar 90 18:37:07 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 >In article <4737@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone >> sold by DAK) Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard Walkman type headset is what I need. I already have a Plantronics headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a little more mobility. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 16:08:37 PST From: Cathy Kearns Organization: Octel Communications, Milpitas, California In article <4812@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 148, Message 4 of 11 >We have a System 85 and are looking to add voice mail. The campus has >2,000 students and about 500 faculty/staff. We've talked to two >vendors, ATT and Octel. One vendor claims 18 ports is plenty the >other says it won't work with less than 32. Now that's a pretty big >difference. A consultant claims that system integration is the key >and you should never put another vendors product on an ATT switch. >That sounds more than strange! Can anyone point me in the right >direction? Does anyone have Octel on an 85? How does one properly >size a voice mail system? Yes, it does seem strange that two quotes for voice mail systems are off by 14 ports. To answer the question "How does one properly size a voice mail system? " I'd say start off with erlang tables. Erlang tables are an industry standard that uses traffic to size needs for PBXs, ACD systems, Voice Processing systems, and determining trunking requirements. You should ask both vendors to show what numbers they used to come up with those port quotes. Perhaps one vendor was using actual traffic statistics, and the other was guessing at them. Your consultant is correct when saying system integration is the key, however Octel systems DO integrate with System 85s. Sales Engineering informs me (I'm a development programer) that we have over 100 systems in the field integrated to ATT System 85. This means yes, the Octel system answers your phone if you are not available and gives the caller your personal greeting and allows him or her to leave a message. This means yes, if you have messages the message waiting light on your phone will be lit or if your phone does not have a message waiting light you will get stutter dial tone when you take your phone off hook. This means yes, if you dial into the system from your phone it will not ask you to enter your extension (or mailbox number.) These are just a few of the features that come with an integrated system. We use a System 85 in our engineering lab to test integrations with new features, I've seen it work. You should ask your Octel sales person to get you a list of customers with Octel systems integrated with System 85s. All that work and at least one consultant hasn't noticed! Cathy Kearns Software Engineer Octel Communications cathy@octel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 21:44:46 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Vista United Followup Last month I described my encounter with "Vista United" while I was staying onsite at Disney World in Florida. When I dialed 0+NPA+NXX-XXXX there was a ringing tone, followed by a ka-bong, and I was told "Thank you for using Vista United." I called the hotel desk and was assured that Vista United was their local exchange company and they really did use AT&T for long distance. They did not. My telephone bill this month includes charges from Telecom*USA for the calls I placed from Disney World. I was not surprised to find that the calls cost me more. As I suspected at the time, I should have avoided the Mickey Mouse telephones (on which 10288 did not work) and placed my calls from the AT&T exhibit in Epcot's Communicore. (I also note that Disney is raising their ticket prices and justifying it not on the basis of expenses, but because they believe they are providing enough value to warrant charging more. Is this what Walt would have wanted?) John ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #152 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04056; 8 Mar 90 4:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22067; 8 Mar 90 3:06 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13262; 8 Mar 90 2:02 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 1:16:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #153 BCC: Message-ID: <9003080116.ab19221@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:15:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (John Debert) Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Bob Sherman) Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Installing a Second Line in Apartment (Raymond Koverzin) Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Jody Kravitz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Respnding to: , Sat, 3 Mar 90 > In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap >the phone system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this >is really true? Not as difficult as the mostly out-of-date textbooks would make you think, Christopher. The advances that gave you all the horsepower of a PC and hand-held cellular radios have been applied to the test equipment, too. This means complex processes that once would have taken a van full of cranky analog test gear now are available in a single box, albeit an expensive one. You could rent it for perhaps $200 for a week, though. For good old analog stuff, few people properly understand just how much stuff the antennae splatter out "off axis," out of their main lobe. (Somehow they can't relate that it's the same stuff that sets off their radar detector when they pass one a mile or so away.) It means in that case that a smart tech with a home satellite TV downconverter and a shortwave radio with a Beat Frequency Oscillator (BFO) can even scan what's on them. This sort of analog interception has been of enough concern that our people intervened in London when the GPO (now British Telecom) built their tower in the center of London, asking them to relocate some microwave beams that would wind up passing over the Russian Embassy there. It ain't THAT hard to do. The question in both cases is: How much effort do you want to put forth, and is there an easier way? My answer is: There are a number of other vulnerabilities all those phone lines have and easier ways to do it. Problem is: If I told you here how amazingly simple it is to use far less elegant methods and how they could (and have been) accomplished, I would be 1.) Giving away some of my stock in trade that buys me groceries for the kiddies (by counseling communications and DP managers for a living), and 2.) Probably opening myself for prosecution, if not at least getting on a subversive list someplace. Suffice it to say that crooks are lazy people, and they have easier ways than the Russians had to use in London. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Date: 8 Mar 90 04:43:47 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <4787@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) says: > From article <4690@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by CJS@cwru.bitnet: >> In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone >> system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this is really true? >> Just how hard is it for someone to do? > There are two major impediments to tapping microwave systems that > usually outweigh technical considerations. > 1) The cost of obtaining space in the line of the microwave beam. Why can't one aim their dish at the antenna they wish and pick up the signal bouncing off it? I hear that the Russians have been doing it this way for some time. > 2) The risk of being caught, and the potential penalties (civil and > criminal) that result. Is the risk really very high? How likely is it that someone doing this will be noticed, let alone caught at it? > Note that for foriegn embassies/consulates that happen to be > located within the beam, these considerations probably do not > apply [in most countries, the GOVERNMENT can legally tap the > phones, as long as the GOVERNMENT gives its permission - this > includes the USA]. Embassies & consulates are legally foreign soil and are not subject to the laws of the host country. As for the latter part of this statement - do you mean that the government can give itself permission? It's not really clear what you mean. You seem to think that it's nearly impossible to intercept links' signals. I rather suspect that you would be speechless were you to discover how easily and cheaply it could be done. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 06:27:57 GMT In <4851@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Call a friend with 3-way calling, and get them to serve as a bridge. >If you have Class services, surely you have 3-way. In fact, I could >imagine some of those operator services companies doing that. Sorry to disappoint you. But when going through call forwarding or 3 way calling, the phone number of the phone YOU are using will be the first number in the datastream, and will still be the number displayed on the CPID display. You could go through the telco operator console however, in which case her position code will show up, not your number, however you will be charged operator assist charges. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL: BSHERMAN >> Miami's Big Apple - 305-948-8000 - 24 hours - 300/1200 - PCP'able << >> Oldest Apple support board in Southeast. Now in it's ninth year. << ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: You want to hear another laugh? Try calling 800 > Directory and asking for 'AT&T Mail'... they will give you some > strange number in New Jersey which is answered 'hello', and after > you explain that you are trying to reach AT&T Mail Customer Service > they will (maybe) transfer you correctly to some other number. Try > 201 Directory; they've never heard of AT&T Mail either, and finally > they will give you the Corporate switchboard and let her try to > figure it out. PT] Well, it's not quite *that* bad. What you get is the Technical Support Center. What you want is the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center, 1-800-MAIL-672 (1-800-624-5672); outside the U.S.A., call 201-668-6548. If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a message to !atthelp on the service. (The TSC was able to give me the right number, and apologized for the confusion.) In article <4781@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telotech!lenj@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu (Leonard A. Jaffe) writes: > I read the above a day before I was put in charge of getting info > about AT&T Mail. I contacted a person who I figured would know and > he gave me the name and number of his contact: I've worked with the person Leonard mentions. He's a very nice guy, and I'm extremely grateful that he (or his secretary) helped you out. But he's a systems engineer, not a customer support type; yes, he can answer your questions, but not as easily as the CAC, and he's not doing his "real" job when he's doing that. >Leonard A. Jaffe, ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj The obvious next question is, "How can I get to AT&T Mail from the Internet?" The answer is, for the moment, you can't. Technically, it's easy, since AT&T Mail supports uucp. The problem is, any system that set itself up as a gateway would be billed for messages it passes on to the service, and wouldn't be able to charge its clients back. AT&T management knows this is a limitation, knows that the competition talks to the Internet, and knows that an Internet connection would be a Good Thing. If something develops, I'll let you know. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ From: Raymond Koverzin Subject: Installing a Second Line in Apartment Date: 7 Mar 90 19:07:11 GMT Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA I want to install a second phone line in my aparment. I called Pac Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge. I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the apartments are properly wired for a second line. He said that I would have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it. I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs connected to the outlet. How can I be sure that the second pair is hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation? Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the line is good inside my apartment. If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired up to the wall of the apartment building." It is only up to the pedestal. How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech? I don't want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that myself. The apartment complex, I believe, is about 5 years old. Please post your replies because I think a lot of people would be interested in the replies. But if you prefer, you can email me directly. Thanks. Ray ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable," posted Thu, 1 Mar 90: >.." Two blocks south of my house, at each end of the street (east and >west ends, that is) there are large AT&T signs warning us that there >is a buried transcontinental cable and awful things will happen to >anyone who digs without talking to them first. Since the only thing >to the east is the ocean, I presume this is one of the transatlantic >cables. Anybody have an idea which one?" Doubtful it is one of the transoceanic cables, John. Those are usually _very_well_ protected in conduits running pretty directly from the shore station toward the shoreline. That is _not_ to say the route is in a straght line, but it's usually in the streets of the town where the cable station is, not 30 miles up the shore. As to just _what_ you find there, the operative word on the sign is "transcontinental." That's one of the forms of several signs used by AT&T over the years for coaxial cable routes across the country. In an area like the Jersey Shore, it could in fact be the coaxial route from Tuckerton carrying its circuits into New York for termination on a switching machine, or even a coaxial route between AT&T facilities along the shore. You know, Ocean Gate is where AT&T has one of its shortwave stations that is still partially operative, for the ships at sea on shortwave radio. In the era that Ocean Gate was built, coaxial would have been the medium of choice to carry its circuits back to NYC for interconnection to the domestic network. As to transoceanic cables in general, many people would be sur- prised to know just how many there have been, dating in telegraphy from _long_ before the era of undersea telephone cables. One statistic I have in my library is that Cable & Wireless alone had 155,000 _nautical_miles_ (the LONG miles) of telegraph cables still in use in the 1950's. I personally had involvement in the restoration of a telegraph cable running from Havana to Key West in 1968, when it finally failed from a cut. Even later in the early 1970's that _same_old_cable_ was put back into service using a custom-built FSK system (get this: 250 Watts of low-frequency audio on 80 miles of DC telegraph cable under the Straits of Florida. Bet some environmentalists will find a reason to protest that one now that I've revealed it!). Other cables are (or were) in surprising places. One I know of was Western Union's cable station simply called "Rockaway." It is located just inshore of Rockaway Beach at Brooklyn, where WUTCo terminated telegraphic cable circuits to a _major,_ _multinational_ telegraphic interchange point on the island of Horta in the Azores. (Cables of American, English, Italian and German interests all landed on Horta, crossing paths between Europe and both North and South America. Anyhow, the workers at Rockaway were good old New York City boys who lived in Brooklyn and even rode the subway to work! (I was privileged to work with some of these heroes of what I call "megalithic telecommunications" in their later years; the major lesson I learned from them was that there _was_ life before Bell Labs and Cliff Robertson! Someday, somehow, all of this _has_ to get into a book _and_ the curricula of the courses now being foisted as learning a "proper appreciation" of the technology of telecommunications! How about it? Any takers out there? I have an extensive source of telecommunications history that exists only in mostly lost company publications and personal archives of some of those giants I was privileged to work with. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin [Moderator's Note: Please do share some of that history with us. From at least a few of the messages I get here, I think some readers believe the telephone was invented circa 1980. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 21:58:04 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller >There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly >like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller. . . I live in rural San Diego County. The former owner of my phone number was a Mexican who tanned hides. This was his home number, but he must have given his home number to lots of people. Many of the callers did not speak English. Their persistance would lead me to believe he owed them money. When I lived on the University of Illinois campus, I shared the first floor of an old "mansion" with 3 other guys. I was the only one who was employed, so I had the only phone in the house. I programmed computers, and worked weird hours. I had call forwarding. In order to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time & temperature lady when I was tired. One night I get this call from repair service. "Is anything wrong with your phone ?" "No", I respond, sleepily. Well, it seems that my roommates's friend had hassled the operator to tears trying to get her to put his call through to my roomate. The operator had never heard of call forwarding. The guy at repair service seemed amused when I explained to him that my phone really was working fine, and that forwrding was how I expressed my aggrevation at my roommate's friends using my phone. The next day, it was no longer possible to forward calls to the time & temperature lady. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #153 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11904; 9 Mar 90 0:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18231; 8 Mar 90 22:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09473; 8 Mar 90 21:09 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #154 BCC: Message-ID: <9003082022.ab05911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:21:53 CST Volume 10 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (John Higdon) Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Michael Morrell) Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Patrick L. Reilly) Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan (Robert E. Zabloudil) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Andrew Payne) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Will Martin) Re: London 071, 081 Split (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Tom Lowe) Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Jim Rees) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies A bit of syncophancy (check THAT one in your thesaurus!) with our moderator on the issue of cross-subsidy: >[Moderator's Note: The flaw in your analogy between AT&T/Bell System >subsidies to local service from long distance revenues and the >Japanese thing is that AT&T started doing it at a time when we were >striving for universal service -- phones in each household, etc. >Keeping the price of local service artificially low at the expense of >long distance revenues was one way to help spur universal service. >So phone service overall was improved by the cross subsidy >since the low rates for local service prompted more people to get >phones, thus increasing the value of my phone and service. This >is true only of phone *connections* -- not phone *instruments*. >If your instrument meets certain minimal standards imposed by the >FCC, we can communicate with each other. The Panasonic or AT&T >label on it matters not. PT] Right on, Pat! It seems the history has been _so_completely_ obscured that people _do_not_ comprehend the "deal" that AT&T concocted with the Feds in 1913. PLEASE, EVERYBODY, AFTER ME: It was a pure, plain, simple Anti-Trust Consent Decree that the Bell interests sent a relatively minor VP named Kingsbury down to Washington to sign. Then, as now, you _never_ expose your King to the opposing Army, and AT&T knew how to play chess in 1913, you betcha. They sent Kingsbury with instructions, and to every demand he was exposed to, he had to "check with HQ" to get approval. What the Feds did do in 1913 was to craft a pretty neat deal to get the latest in (1913) technology spread out to all of us, without requiring Government funding; getting us all to pay for it, while creating an industry that employed millions and expanded the economy. Some pretty smart work in retrospect, because for a lot of decades, it accomplished something we all wanted that _did_ benefit us all. The monopoly on the rental of the terminal equipment was one Bell grabbed off state-by-state, and it wasn't so bad at the outset as it helped to fund the whole project. For those who _really_ want to understand this point, read some of the state-by-state history of the Feds breaking up the terminal monopoly. North Carolina may have been the most ridiculous approach suggested. Their PUC even for a while mandated you could own your own phone for use _only_ on a _second_line you rented for INTERstate calls, but you had to have a "primary" line with a Telco-rented phone for LOCAL and INTRAstate calls! That's how silly the politicians can get with this simple, buggy-whip-era (think about that!) technology. je regret, mes amis, qui votre lecteurs n'compris pas l'hist- oire de le Systeme Bell vraiment. Ils sont present seule- ment l'version de Cliff Robertson. Suivant, nous avons beau- coup de les IROCs (Idiots Right Out of College) pursuivant les affaires du telecommunications aujourd'hui. et maintenant, notre moderateur: Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones Date: 7 Mar 90 18:45:37 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Steck Thomas writes: > I am the owner of a Uniden cordless phone. > [...] > My question is this - how hard is it to install an external antenna of > some sort to boost the reception? Not very hard, but not very effective, either. Also, probably not very legal. If you are experiencing interference, then simply installing a bigger antenna will bring in more noise along with signal and your net gain will be zero. Also, cordless phones operate under a section of the rules that are very strict regarding antenna size in addition to transmitter power. Tampering in any way with the RF section (including antenna) of a cordless phone voids FCC type acceptance. You probably ought to look into a cordless model that can better deal with the interference. Take a serious look at the AT&T 5500. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Michael Morrell Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 7 Mar 90 21:44:16 GMT Organization: HP System Architecture Lab, Cupertino >Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). This feature should be illegal. Michael [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered, regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my campaign. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Patrick L. Reilly" Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Date: 8 Mar 90 16:50:38 GMT Reply-To: motcid!reilly%uunet.uu.net@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL techwood!johnw@gatech.edu (John Wheeler) writes: >In article <4690@accuvax.nwu.edu> CJS@cwru.bitnet writes: >> In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone >>system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this is really true? >Well, having installed several dozen home satellite TV systems in the >East Tennessee/Southwest Virginia area, I can tell you that there are >places it's hard NOT to "tap" the microwave transmissions..... In a previous life as a toll center engineer we would insert tones in a microwave channel in order to trace performance. A similiar practice is used to "tap" microwave lines. I cannot tell you how to do it (and it is easy despite what you may here from this group) since it is ILLEGAL. Also a tad expensive, say about $50K for the equipment. ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan Date: 8 Mar 90 19:08:57 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <4839@accuvax.nwu.edu> tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 149, Message 2 of 8 >Nowhere does the article mention the motivation behind the variation >in rate increases. Why might this be? What are the costs to the >various telcos in implementing this wide-area calling, and how if at >all is this cost related to the rate hikes? Why would it cost GTE >customers some $4.16 for this? As I recall reading somewhere, at least back in the Iowa/Illinois area, your basic local rate is based to a degree on how many phones you can reach toll-free. Thus, by expanding your toll-free area, you can call more phones "free", making your basic service more valuable, so the phone company can charge you more. If you make a lot of calls to the "fringe" areas, you'll probably come out ahead; if you're a little old lady only calling your friend across the street, you may lose a little on the deal. Bob Zabloudil Opinions my own, etc. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Payne Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 8 Mar 90 20:30:34 GMT Reply-To: Andrew Payne Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY In article <4863@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Jesse W. Asher" writes: >I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight >answer from the phone company. Can anyone tell me what the "Federal >Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay >it? >Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired >of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to >anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge or the amount. Anyone know the basis for this charge? What is the distance beyond which the charge applies? (My parents are less than 1.5 miles from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO (e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too). Also, my parents are one of the closer ones: A friend if mine is more than 25 miles from the exchange.) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu [Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is how the charge is described? Could it be a 'foreign exchange' (or FX) charge for being served (at their request) from a CO other than the one intended to serve them? Can you give more specifics? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 14:53:07 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what motivation the consumer has to get it. The usual "affiliate" type credit cards which have an organization logo or symbol on them either provide some benefit to the organization (a charity or political-lobbying group gets some income based on the amount charged on the cards with its logo), or the consumer gets some sort of benefit -- for example, each $100 charged on the card gets the cardholder a $1 credit that can be used for merchandise from a catalog from the sponsoring organization, like a sports team. Somehow I don't think AT&T can convince people that it deserves charitable contributions, so I think the former motivation is out... :-) So is this AT&T card giving the cardholder credits against his AT&T bills at some percentage of the amount charged? Or does charging $1000 get you a T-shirt with the AT&T Deathstar on it? :-) Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins In v10i114 John Pettitt reported: -> The new London area codes that come into full use on May 1st -> work now! -> Calling 081 941 2564 (my office) works just fine. If I dial 071 941 -> 2564 I get "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcment -> three". I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying: "Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with 081. British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are obviously reversed for the other new area code. BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months ago when I last tried. The little leaflet I acquired from BT also gave the new international codes for London from Eire to the UK after 6th May 1990. The will be 03 071 and 03 081 respectively. This does not fit into scheme used for major metropolitan areas, such as Birmingham and Manchester, but into the scheme used for the rest of the UK. Thus from Eire: 031 London (until 6th May) STD code 01 032 Birmingham STD code 021 033 Edinburgh STD code 031 034 Glasgow STD code 041 035 Liverpool STD code 051 036 Manchester STD code 061 03 + STD code* Other areas * including leading zero Kev. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Date: 8 Mar 90 19:18:39 EST (Thu) From: Tom Lowe > I have a beach house in Harvey Cedars NJ, a small town on a barrier > island about 30 miles north of Atlantic City. Two blocks south of my > house, at each end of the street (east and west ends, that is) there > are large AT&T signs warning us that there is a buried transcontinental > cable and awful things will happen to anyone who digs without talking > to them first. Since the only thing to the east is the ocean, I > presume this is one of the transatlantic cables. Anybody have an idea > which one? It's not TAT-8, that leaves from Tuckerton which is about > 10 miles south. The mainland town across from us where the cable > makes landfall is Barnegat, if that's any help. There's an old VLF > antenna array nearby. From an AT&T Cable Location Map that was supplied by AT&T to a Consulting Engineering firm where my wife is an engineer: The cable that John is asking about is the 'Bermuda "A" Cable'. It starts from a building located on Beach Avenue in Manahawkin, NJ. Manahawkin is a mainland town located across the bay from Long Beach Island, on which is the little town of Harvey Cedars. I think the antenna array John is talking about is at this same location. I do believe that this location is where they communicate to Ships at sea for AT&T's High Seas service. Down in Tuckerton, which is about 6 miles south of Manahawkin and is also a mainland town across the bay from Long Beach Island (which is 18 miles long, north to south) is another AT&T Office from which TAT#4, TAT#7, TAT#8 start. These three cables run under Little Egg Harbor and run across Long Beach Island through a little town called Beach Haven. Those are the only cables on the map I have, which is for Ocean County, New Jersey. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:34 GMT > Yes most of these things have a telemetry mode. The phone I have can > do it in either voice (via a stored voice) or by a modem. The latest AT&T business equipment catalog, which I got in the mail yesterday, lists a monthly service whereby the latest rate information is automatically downloaded to your customer-owned payphone once a month. The catalog is a marvel of marketing hype and techno gobbledy-gook. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #154 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13799; 9 Mar 90 1:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29250; 8 Mar 90 23:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad18231; 8 Mar 90 22:16 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #155 BCC: Message-ID: <9003082145.ab03254@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:18 CST Volume 10 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Chris Johnson) Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: More "I Want My ANI" (Tom Lowe) Re: More "I Want My ANI" (John Owens) Wanted: CCS7 Specs (Lester Hiraki) Caller*ID Complaints, Again (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers (Donald E. Kimberlin) Data Feed over Cable TV (Brian Kantor) Changing to MCI Long Distance (Paul Wilczynski) 508/617 Being in the Same LATA (Jon Solomon) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Larry Campbell) Re: Wroooong Number (Jerry Leichter) Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit (TELECOM Moderator) AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Insight Magazine via J. Lockhard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments Date: 6 Mar 90 23:15:17 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <4785@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu writes: >> [about how he doesn't want B to know that he associates with A] >> With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A. >Suggestions: >1. Wait until you are out of the area to call B. If this information >(that you associate with A) is so sensitive, then maybe the return call >can wait. And other suggestions, mostly for the business world. My warped mind, however, immediately jumped to the more personal world. This will make it a lot harder to cheat on a spouse when your home has Caller ID. Or a significant other. Gee, even folks who are friends of yours but enemies of each other could take advantage(?) of Caller ID: "You called me last night from Nancy's house! How could you? She's an egotistical bitch and I can't stand the sight of her. You'd rather spend time with that snot then watch TV with me?" I guess the answer has to be: prepare thyself for a new generation of telecommunications. No more anonymity at the whim of the moment. Who has never made a crank call? *cough* 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: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research Responding to Bridger Mitchell's inquiry about papers: >Caller ID has generated a lot of discussion, but I am unaware of many >more substantive contributions. I wonder if you know of people doing >actual research in this area that would be at a presentation stage by >the end of the summer?" I would suggest contact with Vic Toth, Principal of V.J.Toth, P.C. in Reston, VA. Vic is on a Presidential advisory council in Washington and pretty deeply into issues of Caller ID, looking into what legislative action should be taken at the Federal level. He can be E-Mailed on MCIMail under the imposing username of "The Law Offices of Victor Toth." Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail: dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI" Date: 8 Mar 90 08:21:33 EST (Thu) From: Tom Lowe > [Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID? > It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are > not stated on the television commercial). The lady recoils in horror, and > frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her > Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him. We see > him humiliated by being exposed and identified. PT] We don't have Caller*ID in our exchange yet (609-698), but I was able to take advantage of Caller*ID technology indirectly. One night we started getting calls where the caller would say nothing. The first two times I stayed on 3 or 4 minutes before hanging up. The third time, I waited about 30 seconds then said "This New Caller*ID we just signed up for sure is handy. The police will be giving you a call tomorrow" at which point I heard a "CLICK" from the other end. Never heard from him again! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI" Date: 8 Mar 90 16:46:08 EST (Thu) From: John Owens > [Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID? > It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are > not stated on the television commercial). The lady recoils in horror, and > frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her > Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him. We see > him humiliated by being exposed and identified. PT] I haven't seen that one, but I've seen two others. One involves two kids left alone; the older brother is trying to explain to the younger brother only to answer the phone if the display shows mom or dad's work number, but the younger brother doesn't pay any attention to him. I didn't think it was very effective, and don't remember it well. The other has three boys of "wonder years" age making a prank phone call to a young woman (possibly their school teacher?). One deepens his voice and tries to arrange a date with the woman. She figures it out, smiles a sly smile, and checks her Caller*ID box. (I'm not sure if she recognizes the number or not.) She says she'll have to think about it and asks if she can call him back. The kid says "I don't give out my number." She says "that's ok" and reads his number back to him. She also asks if his mother is home. The kid is left staring at the receiver with an astonished look on his face. They're trying very hard.... John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Lester Hiraki Subject: Wanted: CCS7 Specs Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 13:24:51 EST I am looking for the technical specifications on Signalling System #7, the protocol which carries the notorious Caller*ID information discussed at great length here. Who publishes this? How can I get a copy? Where can I obtain one? As I am in Canada, I would prefer a local source. Are you Canadians out there?! Thanks in advance. Sorry, no sig - but email to: hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 2:09:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Caller*ID Complaints Again Once again the Caller*ID discussion has gotten away from the technical aspects of the service and into the politics involved. We went through all this last December, and you may recall one of my New Year's Resolutions was no more Caller*ID messages. Well, admittedly we have slipped away from that admirable goal. Once again we will cut the topic off and ask that further mention be in a technical perspective only. No more 'it is good, or it is bad'. I admit I am guilty of this also... and it is a tempting subject .. one that could produce many, many more Digests. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers Responding to Steve Kass' post of 2 Mar 90 > "A while back, I offered to collect information on long >distance carriers: rates, area of service, quality, billing, 950-xxxx >access, etc. and post a summary here." And Steve went on to say the cupboard was bare. Well, Steve, there IS a place to find it all. It goes by the name COMPTEL - the Competitive Telecommunications Association, based in Washington, DC. COMPTEL has about 350 members, has just completed a convention near Miami that rated an FCC Commissioner adressing it, and I think your inquiry to them will bear some fruit. It might cost 15 or 25 bucks for some paper they want to sell you, but it will be pretty authoritative. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Data Feed over Cable TV Date: 8 Mar 90 16:34:32 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there arrived a number of glossy inserts. One is quite interesting: A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and information from around the world, plus sports, weather, entertainment, and lifestyle reports. It's used in over 2,500 schools nationwide as a classroom teaching aid." (and on and on) It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser interface. My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band transmissions on the cable (our cable system runs many of the subscription-TV services' audio as cable-FM stations, as well as the BBC world service, NOAA weather, and suchlike). It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month. However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional $20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC financial/get-rich-quick programs. Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397. That number was busy the one time I tried to call it. I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload already. - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 11:56 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us anymore". Interesting. Paul Wilczynski ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 12:46:12 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: 508/617 Being in the Same LATA They are. Calls from 508-XXX and 617-XXX are handled by New England Telephone. However, the same argument (that some towns are split by lata boundries) applies to towns on the 413/508 boundry. In that case, NET leases intteroffice trunks from ATT and provides local calling for the towns in question. All of this is specifically tarriffed. jsol ------------------------------ From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Date: 8 Mar 90 02:41:31 GMT Reply-To: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. Even worse, one of my roommates once took a call that went like this: Caller (male): "Is Kathy there?" John: "No, there's no one here by that name." Caller (angrily): "Yeah, right. I *know* she's there. You tell her to get her butt on the phone!" John: "What? Really, there's no one here by that name! You must have the wrong number!" Caller (shouting): "Wrong number my ass, I know she's hiding out there, so get her on the phone right NOW before I hafta HURT somebody!" [At which point John gives the guy a few choice words and hangs up. The guy called back three or four times before he finally either popped an artery or found Kathy through other means.] Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109 ------------------------------ From: Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu Subject: Re: Wroooong Number Date: 8 Mar 90 07:39:00 EST Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC) Speaking of ways to deal with persistent wrong numbers ... Years back, a friend of mine had a number that differed by one digit from the local Catholic Church. He got many calls for them: he describes the typical one as "What time is 6AM Mass?" After being awakened once too often - he was on one of those typical graduate student schedules, sleeping from 3AM to 11AM - he once claims to have responded to the question, "Can I speak to Father O'neil please" with "Oh, I'm sorry, the Father is really MUCH too drunk to come to the phone right now. Would you like to leave a message?" -- Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit Mr. Henson has kindly provided a copy of the lawsuit his organization filed against the municipal government in his town relevant to violations of federal law pertaining to electronic mail. I will send out a special issue over the weekend -- probably Saturday sometime -- with this file. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: John Lockard Subject: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST AT&T is expanding its translation services to make it easier for consumers and businesses to communicate with non-English-speeking people. The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, is already available to businesses, which pay a one-time subscription fee of $1,000 to $1,500, monthly charges of $25 to $50, and a per minute charge of $1.94 to $2.75. Later this year, AT&T plans to introduce a non-subscription service that will allow occasional customers to use and interpreter for $3.50 per minute with the charges added to their phone bill. Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is reached by dialing a toll-free number. An operator determines the language needed and connects the caller to the appropriate interpreter, who then translates for the parties in a three-way conference call. Overseas travelers in countries that allow international toll-free dialing would also have access to the service. From Insight, March 12, 1990. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #155 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19516; 9 Mar 90 4:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12965; 9 Mar 90 2:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22617; 9 Mar 90 1:22 CST Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:19:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #156 BCC: Message-ID: <9003090119.ab16457@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Mar 90 01:19:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted (Donald E. Kimberlin) Trying to Call Dabo Singkep (Jim Rees) Switch Applications (Bernard Mckeever) ISDN Tariffed in California (John Gilmore) TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List (Johnny Zweig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Commenting on W T Sykes' post of the AP story about 10-digit-dialing in NC to avoid a new area code: > The alternative to 10-digit-dialing is a new area code for the >state. But Southern Bell officials say of the original 152 area >codes, only eight remain available. > Bellcore - the research and engineering arm of the Bell >operating companies that allocates area codes - is stingy with the >remaining supply until there is no other solution. Oh, what a tangled web of technology we weave ... and then refuse to let go of. As if the Bell Labs-induced way of establishing the "Numbering Plan Area" system was cast in concrete by some previous generation of moguls. In fact, at the time, our U.S. Bell System had been caught with its drawers down about subscriber-dialed intercity calls. Then-Chairman of AT&T, Fred Kappel, took a plane trip to "one of those funny little countries over there" called Sweden to see for himself that the rumor was true about telephone subscribers dialing their own calls between cities. It was true. A "funny little company" named L. M. Ericsson (are you beginning to notice that name here, now, insular fellow Americans?) had indeed supplied its PTT with subscriber-dialed long distance equipment, and they were, in fact, selling it to other "funny little countries out there." Kappel came back with a mandate: "We're gonna do it, too (sic)." He set Bell Labs to task: Do we make it or buy the Ericsson technology? Well, if you were ever around at that point in time, you _knew_ the answer, commonly called "NIH, Not Invented Here." Yep, we _had_ to be like Frank Sinatra and do it _our_way_. That included some clever proofs that we could economize on the (then-mechanical relay-tree) logic and have a finite number of digits for any valid number, 7 local, 10 long distance. The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended, and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. It was therefore widely dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical. As could be expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior American Way had been invented. In fact, the reason Ericsson did that was that even then, they had a "World View" we Americans still do not have. They left their plan open-ended so it could accommodate almost any numbering scheme the world might evolve to. What Ericsson did was to take their plan to the CCITT (another "funny little bunch of people over there") and it ultimately became the CCITT World Numbering Plan, which, of course, the insular Americans could care less about. And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless variations and flexibility. Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years ago? Could we EVER admit that Bell Labs just _might_ have been short-sighted once? Or does it hurt too much to admit that possibility? Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail: dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Trying to Call Dabo Singkep Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 18:17:33 GMT For the last two weeks I've been trying to telephone a friend in Dabo Singkep, Riau, Indonesia. This place is pretty isolated. It's on an island off the north coast of Sumatra, several days by small, leaky inter-island boat from either Singapore or Jambi in Sumatra. The phone I'm trying to call is one of a handful on the island. It's in the hotel. It has a hand crank and a two-digit number. My first try, I called the AT&T operator and asked for the city code for Dabo Singkep. She typed away at her computer, asked me to spell it for her several times, then called the operator in Indonesia. The operator in Indonesia told her it couldn't be dialled direct. She said she would have to ring up the operator in Pekanbaru, which she did, but that operator couldn't get through to Dabo (she didn't say why not). I've tried several times since. Often the Indonesian operator simply doesn't answer. Sometimes she does, but can't reach the operator in Pekanbaru. Once the Pekanbaru operator claimed she had got to the phone line but it was busy. Seems to me that in the old days, before IDD, when you called overseas you would first call the operator (there was only one back then), give her the number, then she would do whatever necessary to put the call through then call you back. They don't seem to want to do that any more. Half the time I don't even get through to the operator in Indonesia, because the AT&T operator is only willing to stay on the line for about a minute trying to reach Indonesia. Should I give up? ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Switch Applications Date: 8 Mar 90 14:39:53 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In an earlier posting the following was asked: >In all my experience with various small scale telephony projects, I >have never really assimilated the various switch types used in central >offices through the years. >Perhaps Larry Lippman ( @kitty ) or Bernard McKeever or other who has >had experience in this area could provide a summary of the various CO >switches, the dates of their prominence, and the common applications >they found themselves in (big cities, toll centers, etc). >For instance, most #2 ESS offices seem to serve a smaller number of >customers and operate more slowly than, say #1 ESS. Any insight into >these issues would be appreciated. >Thanx! >John Boteler Well I have to apologize for taking so long with a reply but I have been out of town for a few weeks on business and just got caught up on the news in this group. I am in the middle of a transfer to Denver so this reply may be a little short. Switching systems come in two basic flavors, LOCAL and TANDEM. Now of course the LOCAL TANDEM switch does a little of both. The local switch connects lines to lines and lines to LOCAL TRUNKS [interoffice/ intraexchange]. The TANDEM switch connects TOLL TRUNKS to TOLL TRUNKS and TOLL TRUNKS to TOLL CONNECT TRUNKS. The LOCAL TANDEM may connect to TOLL TRUNKS directly as may some local switches. Easy so far. Most local [exchange] switches and local tandem switches use 2-wire trunks. Most toll switches use 4-wire trunks. In addition to the intended use as a "public" switch, most of the systems mentioned also saw life, in smaller versions, as PBXs. Now that we have the basics, and the CAPS, out of the way a few words from our sponsor. Much of the information that follows comes from available sources. My thanks to Notes on the Network, Notes on Direct Distance Dialing, and of course Engineering and Operations in the Bell System. The opinions expressed are mine and the accurate information and other good stuff belongs to them. Whatever you do, don't throw away old references just because a new one is issued, you may lose a bit of history in the process. LOCAL SWITCHING Automatic switching equipment started to appear in general use in 1919. [invented in 1889 by A. B. Strowger] The Step by Step [SXS] equipment was installed and [I believe] manufactured by Automatic Electric. In 1926 Western Electric introduced its own version the #1SXS. This system, as many can attest, is still used in many areas. Your basic local system, SXS was "improved" to provide 2-wire toll service as early as 1920. By 1940 SXS Tandem was able to provide Centralized Automatic Message Accounting [CAMA]. SXS spawned several variations used as Community Dial Offices [CDO]. In the beginning SXS was not considered economical for large cities so a new development began on a switcher for large cities. The 1st Panel office was placed in service in 1921. This too was a local switch later adapted to local tandem operations. Peaking in the 1950s, the last Panel office was retired on Sept.11,1982 in Newark N.J. In 1938 the #1XB system was introduced as a "metropolitan" office. The #1XB was faster and bigger than earlier electro-mechanical offices but, not quite "common control". That was the job of the #5XB introduced in 1948. #5XB is capable of providing "most" of the features we associate with the modern switching network. A variation the #5XB is the XBT [crossbar tandem] designed to provide only toll switching connections. NOTE: At the end of this article I will list several small application modifications on the above switching systems. TOLL SWITCHING In addition to the mentioned toll function provided by local switchers, several toll only switches were developed. WOOPS I am running out of time. What follows is only a short list. Is someone has the time feel free to fill in the blanks. If I have NET access at my new location I will try to follow-up. 1943 [Philadelphia] #4 Crossbar System improved in 1953 it became known as the #4A Crossbar System [what else] Electronic Switching Systems [stored program control] #1ESS 1st trial 1960 in Morris Ill. Introduced in 1965 Succasunna N.J. Local Metropolitan applications. Upgraded several times. 1968 local tandem 1974 2-wire toll 1976 #1AESS [New Processor] 1977 4-wire toll #2ESS 1970 Local Suburban 1976 #2BESS same application [I have no idea what happened to the #2AESS] #3ESS 1976 Local Rural #4ESS 1976 Large 4-wire toll #5ESS 1982 ALL OF THE ABOVE [after a little development] Misc. Switching Systems [no particular order] 1979 10A RSS local small rural [a remote linked to a #1A or #2B ESS] 5A RMS and ORM are remote and optical remote modules of a #5ESS switch #1/1A ESS HILO small/medium 4-wire toll on a 2-wire path And last but not least all sorts of CAMA and operator switching systems. I know I have missed a few of the systems and did not provide all the detail available. Sorry for the abrupt ending but....... Hope to be in touch soon, Bernie McKeever ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:22:26 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: ISDN Tariffed in California We got a brochure last week about ISDN from PacBell after inquiring about it a month or two ago. The 10-page color brochure was completely information-free, so we called to see what was up. They didn't know, but promised to hunt around, and a few days later we found that ISDN has been approved on a 2-year temporary tariff in California. The catch is, it's part of Centrex service, which currently has a minimum of 20 lines. They have a request in to the PUC to reduce that to 2 lines, making it useful for a lot more people. The second catch is, it only works in single central offices so far, both because of 56 versus 64 kbit problems and because the CO's built by different manufacturers don't talk to each other very well yet, he said. E.g. they don't pass the out-of-band call setup data in a standard way. The "island" problem is true, at least temporarily. The third catch is, today you can only get it in El Segundo. Within a few months they will offer it in southern Fremont; downtown SF; Sunnyvale; and San Bruno/South San Francisco. None of those sites covers where my company wants service anyway. The pricing looked utterly reasonable; it was about $3.50/line/mo more than regular Centrex service, which is the same price as regular business phone service. Installation charges were $600 plus about $70/line, still half the price of 56kbit leased line installation. (Hmm, but you need it on both ends!) You have to be within 10,000 copper feet of the wire center. They expect no trouble with that in SF and Fremont (Fremont's wire center runs fiber out to chambers in industrial parks, with copper from there; max run about 2000 ft.) Sunnyvale's wire center serves stuff along the Central Expressway so it's pretty straight easy runs. San Bruno/SSF is mountainous and is the 'test case' for long bumpy runs. The representative told me that they expect to be able to offer wide area ISDN (not in the same wire center) by the end of the year, but it will be '94-'95 before it's "ubiquitous". They don't expect to add any more CO's to the test before the end of the year. His explanation was that PacBell would love to convert the CO's as fast as possible but the PUC is balking at making the ratepayers pay the cost of doing so. [[ I wish the moderator would get back to giving entertaining anecdotes about telephony as advertised, rather than smearing people by innuendo who can't respond. I thought the moderator was to prevent flames, not fan them. -- gnu ]] [Moderator's Note: I find this last paragraph hard to comprehend. Are you suggesting there was no truth to the messages regards jolnet and the other sites shut down? And who, at any time, has been forbidden to respond here? Did not Charlie Boykin respond? Wasn't Rich Andrews invited to respond? What sir, precisely do you define as an 'entertaining anecdote about telephony', and where did I advertise this? Finally, is it possible that in future messages you might avoid that old, tired, very worn out phraseology of Usenet -- the word 'flame'? PT] ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 17:45:03 GMT I am setting up a mailing-list (a reflector, to be more precise) for those interested in discussing issues relating to TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation. Topics of discussion could include header-compression, administration, protocols, evolving technology, applications and so forth. The reference system I have in mind is some kind of small computer (possibly connected to a small LAN) with an ISDN interface on it that it uses to talk to a gateway to the Internet -- the issues involved vary somewhat depending on what kind of system one has in mind. For example, a Mac with an ISDN link to a mainframe would never be routing packets from other machines, so source-IP address becomes superfluous per-packet information. Appropriate error detection/ correction techniques for expected ISDN performance problems are another interesting area to explore. I would encourage anyone interested in being part of the list to send requests to tcp-isdn-request@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu. The list itself will be tcp-isdn@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu. Our machines are in the process of being moved to a new location and I have not actually set up the reflector, so if your mail bounces keep trying. Johnny TCP/ISDN [Moderator's Note: My best wishes for success with your project. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #156 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13085; 10 Mar 90 4:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06116; 10 Mar 90 2:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01274; 10 Mar 90 1:30 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:50:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #157 BCC: Message-ID: <9003100050.ab00299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 00:50:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Will Martin) Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Patty Winter) Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Dan Veditz) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (John R. Levine) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (J. Philip Miller) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Michael Coleman) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Tom Lowe) Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Julian Macassey) Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (Tad Cook) Enhanced Service Conference (David J. Farber) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 8:23:13 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls There was a segment on this AT&T Translation service this past weekend on the Voice of America's "Communications World" program. I recommend that Telecom readers who have shortwave radios try to tune this program in each Saturday afternoon; I've been listening to it regularly for some years now, and I often hear items mentioned or discussed that have been on the Telecom list, or that show up there soon thereafter. The thrust of the program is to discuss any and all aspects of telecommunications, both in the US and in foreign countries. It's about 20 minutes long, and the best time to hear it in North America is the airing after the news at 3 PM Central Standard Time (that's 2100 UTC) on Saturday. The best frequencies here in the midwest are 15580, 15410, and 11760 kHz. Non-US readers can get program schedules and information on other times and frequencies from their local USIA office or by writing the VOA directly; the VOA will not provide info to addresses within the US. Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Patty Winter Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 9 Mar 90 20:30:03 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <4923@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: > Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is >reached by dialing a toll-free number. Now that's interesting -- why Monterey? Could it have anything to do with the presence of one of the top language schools in the country, namely the Defense Language Institute? The only problem with that theory is that the DLI instructors already have full-time jobs, and the US government might not like them moonlighting in their spare time. Anyone know whether this is sheer coincidence, or even why this service is based in Monterey? ***************************************************************************** Patty Winter N6BIS INTERNET: winter@apple.com AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44] UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 13:34:30 PST From: Dan Veditz Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif. > [AT&T's] Langauge Line Service [provides] access to telephone > interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, [...] > Based in Monterey, California, [...] Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey. It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the students practice. Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence? Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 9 Mar 90 12:18:56 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew Payne writes: > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. Milage charges are quite common in rural areas. The amount varies from state to state. Sometimes it's a fixed amount if you're outside the town limits, sometimes it's a per-mile charge, but it's usually well-correlated with the amount of 60 HZ crosstalk on the line. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:07:54 GMT In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew Payne writes: > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. > Anyone know the basis for this charge? What is the distance >beyond which the charge applies? (My parents are less than 1.5 miles >from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO >(e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too). >[Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is >how the charge is described? I am sorry I do not have one of my telephone bills handy, but I have a country home which is about 10 miles from the CO (314)-358-xxxx. According to the MO PUC approved tarrifs, the flat rate is only for a defined geographical region, usually the same as the city limits. All other subscribers pay a "milage charge" for the distance they are outside of the region. I suspect that this was instituted in the spirit of distributing the costs according to the costs of providing the service. I believe that I saw a recent article that SWBT was trying to eliminate that part of the tarrif, at least in certain areas near to St. Louis. 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 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 9 Mar 90 15:14:06 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu>, payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Andrew Payne) writes... >In article <4863@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Jesse W. Asher" uunet.uu.net> writes: >>Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired >>of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to >>anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. Okay, here's what it sounds like to me. The "Unregulated Inside Wire Maintenance Charge" is a common rip-off which the Bells cooked up when the ownership of inside wiring was transferred from them to their customers. Since they don't own the wiring in your house past the protector, they may charge a fee for its maintenance. Since it's yours, it's not subject to tariff or other regulation. And you don't have to pay it, if you're willing to fix your own wire (and let's face it, it doesn't need much maintenance!). The distance surcharge is very real too. It's often labelled a "zone" charge. In rural areas, the cost of wire (to the CO) is very high, since the distances are great and the densities are low. So the tariffs may include several zones. Within the innermost zone, you pay the normal charge. Then you pay more for being farther away. A mile and a half seems a bit strange, but if it's beyond the high-density "village" area, it's not unbelievable. A lot of telcos have abolished this in the past couple of decades, and some states don't like it. But it's eminently fair in principle: Most of the cross-subsidy that adds to toll bills goes to pay for rural wire. (Did you know that Mountain Bell and AT&T pay over a dollar a minute to Beehive Telephone for calls into its territory? Not much profit there! See Art Brothers' column in Telephone Engineer and Management; his little Utah telco has some _very_ long local loops. I don't know if he has zone charges, though, since hardly anyone lives near anyone else.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: Michael Coleman Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? Date: 9 Mar 90 06:03:25 GMT Reply-To: Michael Coleman Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <4905@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: -What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what -motivation the consumer has to get it. Well, if the interest rate is 13.5%-14.5%, and they waive the yearly fee (which I assume is $20) for the first year, I'll probably get one because that's a lot better than the interest rates on any of my current cards. I believe it would also qualify as being one of the best in the business. As for donations to charitable causes, I guess I could just charge it on my ATT card 8-) Mike %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% try. %% "When at first you try :- try. %% don't succeed, ..." (coleman@cs.ucla.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card Date: 9 Mar 90 08:16:34 EST (Fri) From: Tom Lowe > What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what > motivation the consumer has to get it. Well, if the reports in the newspapers are correct about it having a 14-15 % interest rate, that would be good motivation for me. There aren't too many cards out there with a rate that low. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 9 Mar 90 17:23:44 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4868@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) writes: > In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 > >In article <4737@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > >> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone > >> sold by DAK) > Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that > you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid > the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard > Walkman type headset is what I need. I already have a Plantronics > headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a > little more mobility. There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304. (818) 715-9096. They have two models: The first model "Walk 'N' Talk Cordless" is a cordless phone with a belt clip pack holding the Touch Tone pad etc. The headset is a Walkman type with an electret boom mike. The second model is like the first, except it has a built in FM radio so you can listen to the Greatful Dead between calls. Prices are about $199 and $169 respectfully. The sales dweeb told me that the headset was "Hearing Aid Compatible". I have never seen or used one of these units. Yours still looking for the five Plantronics Star Sets I stored in the garage. 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 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones Date: 9 Mar 90 19:09:14 GMT Organization: very little Tom Steck asked about adding an external antenna to reduce interference problems from various RFI generators in his home. Adding a better antenna is easy, but unless the antenna puts you further away from the RFI generators (computers, touch-lamps, aquarium heaters, old thermostats, TV synch generators, etc) it may increase the problem. You could add a quarter wave (about 5 foot) ground plane on the roof, and this would allow you to operate the phone a lot further from your home. It will also pick up more interference from other phones/baby monitors on the 49 MHz band in the neighborhood. The ARRL has a book on reducing interference, and there is some material on shielding/bypassing TVs and computers. Check a local ham store for a interference or RFI book. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "David J. Farber" Subject: Enhanced Service Conference Date: 9 Mar 90 16:54:57 GMT Reply-To: "David J. Farber" Organization: University of Pennsylvania Fulfilling the Promise for the 1990's: Telecommunications Technologies and Policies for Industry, Consumer and Education Philadelphia, PA March 23 and 24 In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring together engineers and sociologist, industry representatives and regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and economists to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public interest. Special attention will be paid in the conference to the deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and Europe. Critical questions to be examined include: - Are American business opportunities being lost as the policy struggle continues? - How can information technologies enhance productivity in business, teaching and research? Organized by faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg School of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include speakers such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ed David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President and former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Panels include: - New Technologies and Public Policy: American and European Perspectives - Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future - Consumers and the Intelligent Network - Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix? - Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers? For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for Communications and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania at (215) 898-9494. David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele: 215-898-9508 (off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: 215-274-8293; 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #157 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14411; 10 Mar 90 5:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27692; 10 Mar 90 3:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06116; 10 Mar 90 2:35 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 1:39:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #158 BCC: Message-ID: <9003100139.ab19036@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 01:38:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (John Higdon) Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Tom Neff) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Blake Farenthold) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (John W. Keating) The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Chris Johnson) Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV (Craig R. Watkins) Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos (John Higdon) Phone Dialer Info Needed!! (George Wang) Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Henry Mensch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 9 Mar 90 00:47:27 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Michael Morrell writes: > [In re toll saver] > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free information. Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the charges for unanswered calls. > This feature should be illegal. Oh great. More laws. And how would this be enforced? > [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or > would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages > waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to > cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco > security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a > certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive > messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered, > regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines > with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my > campaign. PT] And rightly so. As I said above, to be totally consistent in your argument, you would have to approve of something like this: You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would sure put war dialers out of business! No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 9 Mar 90 15:41:35 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY! By this logic, telco might as well charge you for a BUSY signal. After all, it told you something (that someone else was calling), didn't it? And hey, out-of-service recordings are valuable info too. Outlaw them or charge for it. Just for fun, why don't we trundle back to REALITY for a bit. Telco is in business to let people TALK, voice or digitally. Nickel and diming Joe Consumer to death by playing petty games with his equipment is not proper conduct of that business. Hell, in the future we'll have voicemail stations integrated into our home computers, and YOU will decide how it behaves. Will we have 'illegal algorithm' tariffs? Paging Mr. Orwell... Remember, when convenience is outlawed only outlaws will have convenience. ------------------------------ From: Blake Farenthold Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 22:32:45 CST Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Jody Kravitz wrote: >>There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly >>like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller. >I programmed computers, and worked weird hours. I had call forwarding. In >order to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time & >temperature lady when I was tired. >One night I get this call from repair service.... The next day, it was no >longer possible to forward calls to the time & temperature lady. Ridding yourself of annoyance calls is what call forwarding was INVENTED for. After I ended a relationship with a rather possessive woman she took to calling me at all hours of te night "to see if I was alone" or "to see if I had changed my mind" and other such wonderful reasons. A simple 72# took care of it all. My first thought was to forward the calls to a modem somewhere (local Telenet pad) but then I got creative. "Dial A Prayer" with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale was my first choice ... it worked well. If it had been available in the area 976-4SEX or some other dial-a-porn would probably been worth the few bucks it would have cost. Anyway Dr. Peale took care of her ... two nights later I quit forwarding the calls and she hasn't bothered me since. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE [Moderator's Note: Getting rid of unwanted calls is not really what Call Waiting 'was invented for', but it is commonly used as you suggest. PT] ------------------------------ From: "John W. Keating" Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Date: 9 Mar 90 17:58:02 GMT Reply-To: "John W. Keating" Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA In article <4819@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair >asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller >reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party >for the number he was dialing! Oh, my favorite repair question was when a repair type called my line up to ask if *my* phone was working. (I had turned off the call waiting for obvious reasons and someone had been trying to reach my number...) ****************************************************************************** * Internet: keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu * REPENT! * * * Usenet: ...!pyramid!rex!keating * The coming of the Great * John W. * * Bitnet: cs6hecu@tcsvm * White Handkerchief * Keating * * CI$: 73737,733 * is near! * III * ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 8 Mar 90 22:38:06 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <4864@accuvax.nwu.edu> henry@garp.mit.edu writes: > From: John Higdon > Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair > asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller > reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party > for the number he was dialing! >One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo >because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there >should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at >random. And this all reminds me of the Saturday afternoon I was at home busy playing a fast-paced, important multi-user game on the mainframe at work on my second line (or maybe I was waiting for a phone call from my girlfriend -- I'm sure it was something important! :-), when this punk calls and asks for "Robert" or some such. I say there's no Robert here, you must have the wrong number. *click* Just when I get comfortable again in the other room, the phone rings again, and the same twit says "let me talk to Robert" as if he really was there, but that I was not letting him use the phone, or maybe just trying to hide him from his obnoxious friends, so I clearly tell the caller that in no way is there a Robert ever at this number. *click* Ten or twenty minutes later, same bozo calls back again. I tell the guy that by no stretch of the imagination is the person he wants to talk to at this number. He then proceeds to substitute obscenities for most of the verbs, adjectives, nouns and adverbs in his next few sentences as he tells _ME_ off for being a smartass! Uh duh. Who was the moron who kept calling the wrong number again? Sheeesh. 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: Fri, 9 Mar 90 18:55 EST From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV >A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are >being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone >games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. We've had this service for many years. Basically, it works. >It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic >box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser >interface. It's a 9600 baud modem (actually, just a "dem", no "mo"). They use different carriers on different systems, but the ones that I've seen are in the commercial FM band. I looked at it years ago and I seem to remember that I decided that it was simple FSK, but I can't swear to that anymore. The "basic" service here is free (comes with basic cable service, like MTV). The "executive service" that you speak of has a monthly charge, as does "The Electric Toy Box." The executive service is a news service; the Toy Box is a service which downloads PC games. The news contains current wire-service news such as top AP headlines at the top of each hour. >Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to >leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in >electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). There is no buffer in the box at all. The software that they supply puts articles into memory (not disk). Articles are rebroadcast often. Depending on how many newsgroups (my term, not their's) you enable, you should be able to turn on your machine and have articles come in faster than you can read them. The software contains some keyword capabilities. >The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster >Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397. That number was >busy the one time I tried to call it. It's sometimes busy, but not all the time. They are fairly helpful; you should call them if you have questions. >I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service >isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on >the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. Keep looking. I suspect you will find it soon. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Date: 9 Mar 90 00:25:10 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon On Mar 8 at 0:31, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is > provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a > million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually > have a buyer. Guess who! Pacific Telesis, that's who! And why will PacTel be able to run this money-losing operation when the mighty Group W cannot? It's very simple. The answer is contained in previous discussions herein, but to save you, gentle reader, the trouble of looking through your archives, I'll recap. After conning the California PUC into a regulation scheme, known to the world by the euphamism "incentive regulation", Pacific Telesis will have plenty of money to vulture-capture markets on a global scale. This will enable them to be at the fore when proper manipulations set them up as the only game in town for whatever it is that they are sinking claws into at the time. In other words, when I write that (sizable) check to Pac*Bell every month, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the money is being well spent helping to provide cable service to our honorable moderator until such time that PacTel is able to parlay their acquisition into something really lucrative. > Yes, one of the > first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will > happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His > Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly > greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that > will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of > PacTel is being created to run things here. PT] So that's where they ended up with that! They tried desparately to get the Palo Alto (or was it Menlo Park?) cable franchise and bombed. It looks like Chicago is far enough away so that we dial tone customers won't put two and two together and watch "incentive regulation" in action. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:20:13 -0600 From: George Wang Subject: Phone Dialer Info Needed!! I am interested in building a tone phone dialer. I am interested in knowing what kind of frequencies are generated in a touch tone phone. Also, what kinds of specialized chips do we need?? Any layout or circuit info??? Please respond via email. Thanks George Wang ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:26:22 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a message to !atthelp on the service. (The TSC was able to give me the right number, and apologized for the confusion.) When dealing with attmail!atthelp you have to be sure to not give them a reason to write you back more than once. they have different people answering the e-mail sent to atthelp, so there's no guarantee you'll get the same person twice, and thus you'll have to repeat yourself ad infinitum... # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #158 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27469; 11 Mar 90 2:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10024; 10 Mar 90 23:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29309; 10 Mar 90 22:42 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:01:43 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit BCC: Message-ID: <9003102201.ab26403@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 21:29:21 CST Special: Alcor ECPA Suit Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ECPA Suit: Court Filing (H. Keith Henson) Postscript (H. Keith Henson & TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: ECPA suit-court filing Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 13:47:53 PST CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN 1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (213) 277-1981 Attorneys For Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, et seq.) H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON, JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G. FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS, BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER, CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL, ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM Plaintiffs, v. RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL, DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN, REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II, ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L. RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO, individuals, and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the State of CAlifornia, And the CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION 1. This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section 2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707. Venue is proper in this Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district. COMMON ALLEGATIONS 2. Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in various point and places in the United States. [except Brian Wowk who resides in Canada.] 3. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a political subdivision of the State of California. Defendant City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within California. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner. Defendants Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said county in the office of the District Attorney, Defendants Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the Riverside Police Department. ------------------- 4. All of the events complained of herein occurred within two years of the date of filing of the complaint. At all times material, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer- driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by the plaintiffs, and each of them. The Alcor Facility is remote in geographical location from all plaintiffs. 5. At all times material, each plaintiff had one or more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at the Alcor facility. Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of Alcor. A true and correct copy of that search warrant is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". The search warrant does not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the E-mail of plaintiffs. 6. On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail. 7. Contemporaneously with the seizure of the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail which was not described either generally or specifically in the warrant hereinabove referred to. -------------- 8. No notice was given to any plaintiff by any defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail. 9. In the process of procuring the warrant, neither the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E- mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry. 10. Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any government entity, including the defendants, nor any defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail. 11. The court issuing the warrant in respect of the Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2705(a)(2). 12. Not withstanding that defendant and each of them were informed that they had taken, along with materials describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and (b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for many months although a demand was made for the return of the said E-mail. Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2707. -------------- 13. Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no event less than $10,000 each. WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray: 1. For damages according to proof; 2. For cost of suit; 3. For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2707(b)(3); and 4. For such other and further relief as is required in the circumstances. Date: January 11, 1990 GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation (signed) CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH Attorneys for Plaintiffs -------------- Exhibit "A" COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEARCH WARRANT To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer in the County of Riverside. Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is probable cause to believe that at the place and on the persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there is now being concealed property which is: ____ stolen or embezzled property __x__ property and things used to commit a felony __x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another) with intent to commit a public offense __x__ property tending to show a felony was committed; YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH : the premises located at [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.] including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as follows: (not applicable) and the persons of (not applicable) for the following property: 1. All electronic storage devices, capable of storing, electronic data regarding the above records, including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard), and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve electronic data including CPU (Central Processing Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s), printer, software and service manual for operation of the said computer, together with all handwritten notes or printed material describing the operation of the computers (see exhibit A - search warrant no., 1 property to be seized #1) 2. Human body parts identifiable or belonging to the deceased, Dora Kent. 3. Narcotics, controlled substances and other drugs subject to regulation by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 4. Article of personal property tending to establish the identity of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas, and containers being searched, including utility company receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or this court at the courthouse of this court. Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________ Time of issuance _______ Time of execution __1600__ Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988 Thomas E. Hollenhorst Judge of the Superior Court ------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A" PLAINTIFF(S) vs. RAYMOND CARRILLO, see attachment "A" DEFENDANTS(S) CASE NUMBER SA CV- 90-021 JSL Rw Rx SUMMONS ----------------------------------------------- TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to file with this court and serve upon Christopher Ashworth, Esq. GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is: 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 (213) 277-1981 an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Date Jan. 11, 1990 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By MARIA CORTEZ Deputy Clerk (SEAL OF THE COURT) ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Postscript Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 09:15:02 PST A few corrections to your anouncement. I live in San Jose, only two of the plaintiffs (who worked there) could be considered local to Riverside, one lived as far away as Canada. Second, Alcor (the owner of the BBS) is not a party to the suit, only the users who had email on the system. Thank you *very* much for covering this issue, and I will do my best to keep you informed on developments. Incidentally, my phone number is 408-978-6716 hm and 408-734-5287 wk. Like many in Silcon Valley, I am at work typically from about local noon to 8-9pm. I don't mind my phone number going out to those who could make use of my experience on this topic. Keith Henson [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along. Mr. Kenson sent me several very lengthy files relating to the legal procedings now going on. I found them rather informative, and I am sure he will send copies to any of you who request them. The files he sent me include correspondence with the FBI and the United States Attorney, asking why they are, in his estimation, refusing to act on the complaint he filed against the Riverside County authorities. Unfortunatly, there is no room here to run those files (some 50 K of material was sent to me), and much of it is not telecom-related, which is why I suggest you get it direct from him if interested. In my own opinion, I think they are going to lose the case, simply because although the search warrant did not specifically mention email using those words, it did discuss electronic storage media of all kinds. It would be impossible to examine that media in detail without reviewing the contents thereof. I think the court will rule that the intent of the law was met and that the authorities acted correctly. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28055; 11 Mar 90 2:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01813; 11 Mar 90 0:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10024; 10 Mar 90 23:47 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #159 BCC: Message-ID: <9003102250.ab18492@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Dataports at Atlanta (Ken Jongsma) Additional Caller ID Information (James Van Houten) Call Setup Info Reciprocity (John Boteler) AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus) (John Owens) Frame Relay vs. the CONS (Fred Goldstein) FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games (James Van Artsdalen) Commercial for Free 900 Numbers (David Tamkin) Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges (Mark Solsman) Sprint Plus (Carol Springs) Alternate Carrier List Availability (Joe Weisenfeld) Changing to MCI Long Distance (Really Switcheroo) (David Lesher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Dataports at Atlanta Date: Thu, 8-Mar-90 17:29:54 PST I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the phone network. Seattle has a nice buisness area with desks, fax machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! Anyway, I had 30 minutes to kill in Terminal 3 and thought I'd check my company VAXMail. Now, Atlanta has loads of payphones (all "serviced" by NTS - but that's another story). Unfortunately, none of them have RJ11 jacks. Looking around, I noticed that there was RJ11 jack by each jetway door. Ah Ha! I thought there might be an outside chance I could get dialtone and make a credit card call. I found an unused Delta gate and proceeded to unzip and hook up my laptop. Unfortunately, there wasn't any dialtone. The jack was either disabled or a digital loop of some kind. As I was packing up my computer, I noticed two senior Delta reps quickly walking my direction. It took some explaining - The one talking wanted to know who would have gotten billed for the call if it had gone through and couldn't understand why I wasn't using the payphones. We eventually parted on good terms, though the rep was telling his partner that he had never heard of such a thing. Later, at Chicago, I noticed there weren't any data jacks around the United terminal either. It's a shame, after you get used to the area at Seattle, you sort of expect it to be available everywhere. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 08 Mar 90 23:31:34 EST From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: Additional Caller ID Information I was messing with my SAN-BAR 30F Caller*ID display today and found that there is a phrase in the box called "PRIVATE NO.". Not "OUT OF AREA" but "PRIVATE NO." This raises some interesting questions!!! When will I start seeing this with unlisted numbers!! Just thought I would let you all know that at least SAN-BAR is prepared for the WORST. Thats all for now. James Van Houten P.O. Box 502 Temple Hills, MD 20757 Home (301) 967-3309 Work (301) 248-3300 Voice Mail (202) 928-1036 HAM: KA3TTU @ N4QQ CIS: 72067,316 ------------------------------ Subject: Call Setup Info Reciprocity Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:38:37 EST From: John Boteler I commend the moderator for limiting the discussion of Caller*ID to the technical areas. It solves many problems at one stroke and allows this discussion to progress. It appears, magistrate, that although the calling number is displayed on a Caller*ID display unit when the calling office supports it, the other class features which rely on this same information are not always usable. To clarify, a particular office was recently upgraded such that it now transmits the calling number. That's nice. However, attempts to add a number from that same office to the distinctive ring list, the selective call forward list, or the other CLASS service lists for that matter, fail with the message that "the number you have dialed is not available with this service". Why is this? What other service elements must be in place in order to provide such CLASS services as distinctive ring, which apparently depend only on the originating number. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus) Date: 8 Mar 90 22:37:14 EST (Thu) From: John Owens On Mar 5, 15:40, Carol Springs wrote: > Anyone know if AT&T is sending out Reach Out America brochures > directly to its customers? (Not that it needs to, given the massive > ad campaign...) A few months ago, I made a few more long duration coast-to-coast calls than usual. In the AT&T portion of my phone bill for that month, all of the calls eligible for ROA (all the domestic direct-dialed ones) are marked with an '@' next to the '*N', etc., rate codes. At the end of the bill, before the total, is a section which reads (verbatim): ****************************************************************** @After analyzing your long distance calls this month, we find you could have saved money with the AT&T REACH OUT (sm) AMERICA Long Distance Calling Plan. For $7.15 a month you get an hour of weekend and night direct dialed AT&T interstate calling, and additional time costs less than 12 cents a minute. For further information, call 1 800 REACH OUT, ext. 3058. ****************************************************************** What's most interesting about this is that the bill is generated by Bell Atlantic's billing system. I wonder if any other carriers get equal enough access to have custom algorithms run by a BOC as part of the billing process.... John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:05:16 PST From: "k1io@FN42jk 09-Mar-1990 0957" Subject: Frame Relay vs. the CONS In article <4809@accuvax.nwu.edu>, paulb@mlacus.oz (Paul Bandler) writes... >It seems that it is envisaged that packet switching services of the >future over ISDN such as Frame Relaying are expected to support OSI >CONS by the user using an enhanced version of LAPD, LAPD+, in >conjuntion with out of band call setup with Q.931. This will provide >a lean and mean OSI WAN CONS. Nope. LAPD+ does NOT provide the CONS. Nor will we allow it to, since it's not a network layer protocol. There are two solutions defined for running the CONS over LAPD+. One is a one-octet convergence function. The other is to use X.25-PLP (data transfer phase) over LAPD+. I realize that's the American view and you Aussies may see it differently, and I don't think it's settled at CCITT, but for sure we Gringos don't go along with bowdlerizing the CONS. Nor do we go along with turning LAPD+ into a combination data link and network layer protocol. I've seen a number of "economy of protocol" hacks, where one protocol is set to do the work of more than one layer, and they generally turn into disasters. >Now for LAN/WAN OSI CONS relays today you have to run X.25 over both >the LAN and the WAN connection. Now if in the future we're going to >see WAN CONS provided over LAPD+ then it would seem a bit strange to >me to have to go 'up' to a full X.25/LLC[2|1] stack to get the CONS >across the LAN. Why would anyone want to run the CONS (X.25) across a LAN? :-) (Yes, I know some CONS fanatics do it.) But since we're not going to get the CONS from LAPD+ per se, the question is moot. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 03:09:39 -0600 From: James Van Artsdalen Subject: FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games A friend forwarded to me some postings regarding Steve Jackson Games being raided. I thought I'd emphasize that the company Steve Jackson Games is quite legitimate. They design, manufacture and market games, mainly of the role-playing variety. James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Dell Computer Co 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759 512-338-8789 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Commercial for Free 900 Numbers Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:21:07 CST Starting just a couple hours ago, I've heard three radio commercials for Merchant Communications, Inc. They are advertising that if you have a good idea for a 900 line, they'll set you up with one for free. To reach them, naturally, you need to dial a 900 number. The call costs "only" $10.00. David Tamkin dattier@gagme.chi.il.us {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier Post Office Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 (312) 693-0591 Gagme management's official position on the above is an utter mystery to me. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Friday, 9 Mar 1990 15:58:04 EST From: Mark Solsman Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from the relay station to the destination. I would like to know for both a public and a private installation. Thanks in Advance! [Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, at least on shorter calls? PT] ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Sprint Plus Date: 9 Mar 90 14:49:10 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Thanks to everyone who wrote me about Sprint Plus. I will summarize here. No one reports getting extensive information on Sprint Plus while already a Sprint customer. One person thinks he might have seen it mentioned briefly in a bill enclosure. As I pointed out, and as was mentioned in one response, conversion to Sprint Plus of existing accounts means (in most cases) less money from those accounts for Sprint. One person who received information on the plan from Sprint itself got it in the form of a promotional mailing last November; he was not (and is not) a Sprint customer. One person asks if the extra volume discounts are mentioned in Sprint's ads. Since I've never seen ads for Sprint Plus, I wouldn't know. I checked with two Sprint reps on the discounts he mentions and got conflicting information; I'll report the stats I consider the most trustworthy (the rep left the phone for a while to get the info). All are agreed that Sprint Plus offers night/weekend rates between 5:00 p.m. and 7:59 a.m. every day; customers are billed a minimum of $8 a month for calls. Apparently, in addition to these discounts, customers who make between $25 and $99.99 worth of calls per month receive an extra five per cent discount on day calls and 10 per cent on evening/night/weekend calls. Between $100 and $199.99, they get five per cent off on day calls and 15 per cent off on other calls, and for $200 and up they get five per cent on day calls and 20 per cent on others. For what it's worth, the guy who wrote me about the volume discounts and the first Sprint rep I talked to reported 10 per cent off on *all* calls (including daytime calls) at the $25-$99.99 level. In contrast, the volume discounts on "Sprint Classic" have dropped to one per cent. I know little about MCI's and AT&T's similar plans. Someone reports that MCI's discount period starts at 7:00 p.m. and that AT&T's Reach Out America uses beginning times based on the part of the plan customers select; i.e., your mileage may vary. MCI's program started in June 1989 and Sprint Plus seems to have started last fall sometime. I am in the process of convincing a Chicago friend (a Sprint customer) who was burned out by a restrictive AT&T plan a few years ago to switch to Sprint Plus, since his long distance bill is around $40/month. Clearly there is no reason, except inertia and general paranoia, for customers like this to stick with the regular Sprint plan. The rep who converted my account a few weeks ago did so quite cheerfully, after warning me about the $8/month minimum. She also assured me that my Callers' Plus points would be transferred to the new account number, for all that I care. Ironically, on the evening of the day I mailed my summary of Sprint Plus info, I received a brochure on the service directly from Sprint -- as part of a mass mailing targeted at current AT&T customers. I can switch and get "savings of up to 34% over what [I'm] now paying AT&T." Gee, if I switch to AT&T for $5 and then back to Sprint Plus for another $5 before April 20, I can get a free FONCARD-shaped solar calculator... One final thing I should mention is that the evening discounts apply to interstate calls only. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:47:32 PST From: Joe Wiesenfeld Subject: Alternate Carrier List Availability A while ago there was some discussion that the local RBOC would not supply the list of equal access carriers available. This AM I contacted my local business office (for business ,not residential service) and asked for the list of 1plus carriers. The agent immediately gave me the list of 15 carriers available on my exchange and their phone number for contact. He would not give me the 10XXX codes, saying that I would have to get that info direct from the carrier. In a further discussion, he indicated that there were two lotteries in each town, one business - one residential, that determined the list and the order of the list. Thus, even if the same vendors were available to two adjoining towns, the order that their names & phone contact numbers would be given out would be different. Joseph Wiesenfeld TRW Information Networks Division 1001 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 879-7376 joew@trwind.ind.trw.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance, really: Switcharoo Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:50:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Re: The comment from the MCI rep: I checked with Southern Bell re: blocking of dial 1 changes. They don't offer it, but the rep did say they used to get LOTS of those {unauthorized change} problems but one day they just stopped, bang. I think somebody read the sales force the riot act. I wonder who? A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #159 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00878; 11 Mar 90 3:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15904; 11 Mar 90 1:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01813; 11 Mar 90 0:52 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:04:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #160 BCC: Message-ID: <9003110004.ab31581@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:04:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John R. Levine] Re: ISDN Tariffed in California [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [John Debert] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Paul Guthrie] Re: Legion of Doom [Gordon Meyer] More Legion of Doom Antics [Computer World, via TELECOM Moderator] The Operator Knows What? [Carl Moore] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Jody Kravitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Date: 9 Mar 90 15:27:38 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <4924@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 tells a nice tale, and it's probably mostly true, but there's one technical bug... (and amazingly enough, I agree with the moderator that this group should stick more to tech talk than political flamage.) >The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended, >and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the >only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time >and wait to see if any more digits followed. It was therefore widely >dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical. As could be >expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior >American Way had been invented. European open-ended numbers aren't time-dependent. And American switches couldn't have been open ended. Both of those are due to the way switches were built and the network protocols used. In the late '40s, when DDD was invented "here" (by AT&T), the Latest & Greatest switch technology was the Crossbar. Its relay logic was based around deterministic number length. Dial a 3-digit prefix, then a 4-digit suffix, and it stores 7 digits. Once it grabbed the number, it could route it on its merry way, sending the fixed-length string to the next switch. The receiving switch didn't have to say "enough digits" since the digit-string was deterministic. Europeans (such as LME) still used stepper switches and had no crossbar. Steppers don't store numbers; each dialed digit points to either another level of switching or a terminal. You can get very flexible with them. (When you see 4 or 5 digit dialing in the rural US, it's a stepper.) So they developed a dialing plan that took advantage of this flexibility, and couldn't have worked with crossbar. The inter-office signaling differed too. Europeans preferred "compelled" signaling, where the originating office was prompted for each additional digit. When enough digits are received, it sends a different signal to the sender. AT&T (with its crossbars) used en-bloc sending, so the destination didn't ask for more digits. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", they just evolved out of the previous technology. >And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world >has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless >variations and flexibility. The system wasn't wrong per se. Had 1+ for area code (not Toll) been the standard all along, or had the "area code follows" code differed from the "toll center access" code, we'd never have had problems with moving to "interchangeable" area codes (which we'll get this decade anyway). And had the area code boundaries been drawn differently in the first place, we'd have needed fewer splits. But it's sometimes hard to predict what areas will become popular 20 or 30 years in the future! Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 9 Mar 90 13:08:57 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <4924@accuvax.nwu.edu> Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 writes: >In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was >to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. In Europe, this is still often the case. For example, if you want to call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626. >Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years go? Both the American fixed-length and the European variable-length schemes make sense in their respective areas. In the US, we have an enormous area under a single telephone administration, and fixed length numbers make it much easier to do things like route calls from New York to Atlanta by way of Seattle at times when Seattle hasn't woken up yet. A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of accounting for everything make it impractical. Despite all of the moaning and groaning about running out of numbers, the switch to NXX area codes is a pretty minor ones compared to some of the changes that have happened in other countries. Most phone numbers won't change, the numbers that do change will change in a way that's easy to describe, and the dialing procedures either don't change or change in simple ways. Compare this to the European mess where the international code for each country is different, most countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland, and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random places. I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have moved to fixed length numbers, and I expect after 1992 there will be more cooperation among the various telephone adminisrations. It'll be interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme and, if so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have to change. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: ISDN Tariffed in California Date: 10 Mar 90 04:29:24 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) In article <4928@accuvax.nwu.edu> gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 156, Message 4 of 5 >[summary: ISDN is tarriffed, but there are catches] One other thing I would check: it is my understanding when BRI ISDN was first tarriffed in the Chicago area, you didn't have full flexibility over both B channels. I was told that the first B could only do voice, and it would take a SW upgrade before both could handle data. I would hope by now this is resolved, and it isn't an issue in California. P.S. I always feel guilty when I use tarriff as a verb. P.P.S. I still wonder what good it does to get an ISDN line. Who's out there to connect to?? 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 ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 10 Mar 90 09:09:50 GMT Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) says: (stuff about "toll-saver" feature deleted) > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). > [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or > would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages > waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to > cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. By following this chain of reasoning, the conclusion is that one should be charged a fee for not only dialing any number but even for simply picking up the phone. If one dials a number and it is not answered, the message is that there's no one there to answer it and if it rings busy, it's in use. There are other messages as well, such as vacant code, trunk busy, et cetera and your dial tone. I'm sure that the Telco's would be more than happy to charge their customers for every time the phone is picked up or every time it rings - even for every busy or other message. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 10 Mar 90 10:30:11 GMT Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, Save money? What about saving time? Suppose you _know_ there are 11 messages, some quite lengthy, on the machine, and you only want to wade through them if a new one has been added? > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). Maybe you just have a 'thing' against answering machines. BTW, My Code-A-Phone has toll-saver. In Anchorage, because of the schism between the ringback signal and the actual ring voltage (RV precedes ringback signalling here), when I have pending messages on there, it picks up on the *first perceived ring*. Yup, some people have complained. Perhaps, though, they would complain more if there were *no way* to leave me a message. > This feature should be illegal. Techno-toy or whipping boy? Perhaps someday, it will be, but as Pat mentioned, even AT&T has toll-saver on their machines. 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: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 19:56:37 GMT In article <4959@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tom Neff writes: >Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you >something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to >hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY! By this logic, telco might >as well charge you for a BUSY signal. After all, it told you >something (that someone else was calling), didn't it? And hey, >out-of-service recordings are valuable info too. Outlaw them or >charge for it. Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer. The FCC cited the 'information being passed for no charge' excuse for this, so we countered with both the toll saver example and a one other, but they still wouldn't certify it. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:10 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Legion of Doom In a recent digest Bob Moseley III reposted a message, originally from Daneel Olivaw, concerning the e911/LoD ruckus. I'd just like to point out, in the interest of accuracy and quelching the already rampant rumours, that "Taran King" (the co-editor of PHRACK) has not been indicted thus far. In fact, he hasn't had any search warrants executed against him either. For all intents and purposes he is not involved in the case at this time. As an aside, perhaps those of you who have chided Computer Underground participants for adopting pseudonames should reconsider the practice. In light of all the recent techno-fear and witch-hunting it doesn't seem quite so "juvenile". Gordon R. Meyer 72307.1502@Compuserve.com tk0grm2@niu.bitnet Delphi and GEnie: GRMEYER [Moderator's Note: Do I understand correctly? Some one or more people commit a crime; use phake names to avoid detection, and you don't think they should be criticized for concealing their identity? Please read the next message today and tell me if you consider it to be an example of 'techno-fear' and/or 'witch-hunting'. PT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: More Legion of Doom Antics Date: Thu Mar 8 19:42:46 1990 This appeared in [Computerworld], March 5, in their Inside Lines column. Bank-vault Hackers Claim Hit "Two hackers claim to have pocketed $66,000 apiece (sic) from Citicorp after illegally jacking into DEC VAXs on Citicorp's Decnet (sic), which the multinational banking firm uses for electronic fund transfers, according to an account of the episode in an electronic newsletter published by The Legion of Doom. The hackers entered one of the VAXs, created a file to capture incoming and outgoing control sequences and then used the information to divert funds into a Swiss bank account, one of the hackers wrote. Citicorp has declined to comment on the claims." [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a bunch of harmless antics! Are we who condemn these things to be called 'witch-hunters', as Mr. Meyer suggests? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:42:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Operator Knows What? Jody Kravitz' note also says that "The operator had never heard of call forwarding." Has anyone out there ever had to explain a new area code or exchange (most notably, among the exchanges, something of N0X/N1X form) to an operator? I am vaguely aware that some East Coast operators, between 1973 and 1980, didn't know of N0X/N1X prefixes in use in 213 area (now 213/818, later to become 213/310/818). Concern: The poor souls who end up in the first NNX area code. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 22:00:36 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Andrew Payne" writes > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond > a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge > or the amount. My "Monthly Service" includes $1.20/month for Touch-Tone Service and $0.65/month for 1 Quarter Miels Suburban Milage. My other line, which has a seperate bill, does not show such a charge, although I remember they said there would be such a charge when I ordered the service. I'm about 7 miles from the CO. Many of the subscribers in my end of town are served by SLC-96 multiplexors. I'm 1.3 miles from the main highway. I'm at a loss to know how they come up with 1/4 mile of suburban milage. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #160 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03307; 11 Mar 90 4:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25068; 11 Mar 90 3:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15904; 11 Mar 90 1:53 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:48:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #161 BCC: Message-ID: <9003110048.ab27172@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:48:29 CST Volume 10 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson T1 Mux Info Needed [Jerry Aguirre] ISDN 2B1Q Countries? [Czeslaw Piasta] No Forward to Time & Temp? [Carl Moore] Re: No Forward to Time & Temp? [Jody Kravitz] Wrong Number For Model [Durham Morning Herald via J. Dean Brock] Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS [Beezer] DDD History [David Lesher] Try This One! [John Higdon] Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment [Steven King] Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [Gordon Meyer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Aguirre Subject: T1 Mux Info Needed Date: 10 Mar 90 05:32:12 GMT We are trying to get a 64K international circut installed and have run into a problem. The local carrier (PacBell) doesn't offer "clear channel" 64K lines (plus something about superframes being different). The suggestion from AT&T was to get a T1 line for the local loop and put the 64K on a subchannel of that. The rest of the line would feed into our PBX for long distance voice use (Megacom). The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35 subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our switch. (With one of the subchannels dead.) While such a beast is supposed to exist no one has been able to specify one or even tell us what its exact name is. The configuration we are aiming at would look like this: ----- ---------- --------------------- ---T1---| CSU |--T1--| splitter |--T1--| System 75/Generic 1 | ----- ---------- --------------------- | | 64K | V.35 | -------------- | cisco router | -------------- I would appreciate any information and recomendations about the channel splitter and other hardware to accomplish the above. Jerry Aguirre jerry@atc.olivetti.com {amdahl|decwrl|sun}!oliveb!jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:09:08 EST From: Czeslaw Piasta Subject: ISDN 2B1Q Countries? What countries have decided to follow the ANSI-T1.601-1988 specification for the U-reference point? What countries are leaning towards it ? The question more generally can be put, "What countries have adopted or are adopting the '2B1Q line code' ?" Thanks folks, Chester Piasta UUCP: ...!mitel!piasta ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:35:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: No Forward to Time & Temp? The message about no longer being able to forward to time & temperature (from Jody Kravitz) reminds me of earlier note (sometime last year?) about forwarding calls to some recording near Chicago area, as written up in TELECOM Digest. The latter case came under "resale of services"(?), and was discovered by a phone-co. service rep who called the original number and got switched to the recording, and it led very shortly afterward to a phone-co. order that such forwarding be discontinued immediately and permanently. I don't see such "resale" in Jody's note. Jody, when it was no longer possible to forward to time & temp., what happened when such forwarding was attempted? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:52:10 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: No Forward to Time & Temp? In a previous posting I mentioned that my ability to forward my calls to the time & temperature number went away. I received a request to elaborate on this. I do not know the implementation, but a day after the complaint by my housemate's friend, you could not do the forward. If memory serves me correctly, you would get a fast busy if you entered the call-forward code + the number of the time & temp lady. There seem to be a couple of possibilities. Both involve treating the number as a special case. One possibility is that a special case was set in the CO firmware to not allow forwarding to that number. Another possibility is more complicated. The time & temp was provided by the phone company from telco owned equipment in a differrent Central Office than the one that I was served by. It is possible that they allocated a dedicated trunk between the two offices, and made a special case of connecting all calls to the time number to that trunk. This would save a lot of busy trunks and would also make forwarding impossible. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ From: brock@brock.cs.unc.edu (J. Dean Brock) Subject: Wrong Number For Model Date: 9 Mar 90 20:20:58 GMT The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC." At first the older Charlotte Clark could not understand why men would be calling her to discuss Playboy magazine and "hesitated to tell her friends and family about it because it was so strange." Most of the callers were "young fellows," who sounded like college students, she said. A few sounds older, like college professors, she said. [DMH, 3/7/90] Now that Ms. Clark understands the motivations of her callers, she is quick to inform them that they have reached the wrong Charlotte Clark. Oh, the other Charlotte Clark got an unlisted number weeks ago. ------------------------------ From: Beezer Subject: Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City, UT Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 16:45:12 GMT Quite sometime ago, I personally learned that the TELEGUIDE service uses RLE graphics. For those that haven't heard of TELEGUIDE, it is a public service information station that you walk up to and utilize information about all the local events, features, weather, etc... Usally contained in a upright station you walk up to, I'm looking to see if ANYONE knows if you can dial-up one of their data links directly. There are already some comparable NATIONAL systems that use RLE graphics, but they do not focus on LOCAL events. Oh, RLE graphics by the way are very swift "area-fill" graphics that use color. Quick example would be 'rolling green hills, the sun, and a advertizement' that "area-fill" in a matter of seconds. If you have leads, post them up - this would be a great asset to the home computer community. Thanx. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: DDD History Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 21:09:41 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher {Donald Kimberlin talked about DDD/SDT existing overseas prior to here} The most notable STD cutover I ever read about was in the book "A Bridge too Far" about the Operation Market Garden diaster. This was the attempt to capture an intact bridge across the Rhine. Seem as if the advanced paratroops had been dropped without the correct {or maybe ANY!} crystals for their radios. In any case, they had no communications. The local phone systems were dial, but intertown calls needed an operator. So the Germans put their operators in place, but left the locals to run and fix the rest. A member of the Resistance installed SDT at each switch in the system UNDER THE NOSES OF THE GERMANS. They {the Dutch} could then use the system, by dialing more numbers than needed for local calls, and did so for quite a while. When the British advance was pinned down, the Resistance offered several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits did not understand/believe them. Such is the irony/tragedy of war. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ Subject: Try This One! Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Mar 90 18:50:47 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon I have had an ongoing billing problem with Pac*Bell for 27 months. For those of you unfamiliar with a "Full State" 800 number, it works like this: There are four billing rates: Intralata on-peak, intralata off-peak, interlata on-peak, and interlata off-peak. The rates are, respectively, $21.50/hr, $8.60/hr, $12.50/hr, and $5.83/hr. The interlata is handled by AT&T, and no, there is no typo; intralata is higher than interlata. As you can see, that last rate is very attractive. For that reason, I got this service to conduct business with associates in the Southern California area after hours. That was four years ago. In November of 1987, one of my associates moved to the high desert area near Victorville. Phone service there is provided by Contel. That was when the trouble started. Since that time, large amounts of usage have been showing in the "intralata off-peak" column. When this first happened it sent up an immediate flag, since the only calls received are from Southern California. It was no trouble convincing the business office that no calls were originating from within the LATA and they gave me a credit for the difference. But it happened the following month and has happened for 22 of the 27 months since calls started coming in from Contel. Today, I made the monthly call to the business office to remind them of the usual error and got a big surprise. I was connected with a "supervisor" who said that their investigations had revealed that the reason for the billing problem was faulty data from Contel. Well, that made sense. But she went on to say that there really wasn't anything they could do about it and they weren't going to adjust my bill anymore. What??? I asked where that was tariffed, and she said it was really "beyond tariff". As a customer, I'm not entitled to correct billing? Well, she was sorry but that was that and concluded the conversation. First, I called AT&T for a reality check. Am I entitled to get what I ordered and pay the correct rate? Of course. Also, the person at AT&T was interested in how much revenue they were losing due to Pac*Bell's billing errors statewide. After all, how many 800 customers know exactly where all their calls come from and are sure enough of their knowledge to complain? Then I talked to a San Jose area manager for Pac*Bell who actually sounded legitimate. She promised to resolve the problem to my satisfaction by mid-week. This should be interesting. I'll let you know. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment Date: 9 Mar 90 16:57:22 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <4875@accuvax.nwu.edu> ntmtv!koverzin@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Raymond Koverzin) writes: >I want to install a second phone line in my aparment. I called Pac >Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall >of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge. >I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the >apartments are properly wired for a second line. He said that I would >have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it. >I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs >connected to the outlet. How can I be sure that the second pair is >hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation? >Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal >at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to >get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the >line is good inside my apartment. >If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired >up to the wall of the apartment building." It is only up to the >pedestal. >How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech? I don't >want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that >myself. I was in the same situation about three months ago. In my 12-year old apartment building, I found a mess of wires (probably about half a dozen pairs) terminating in bare wire behind my phone plate. "This'll be easy!" I thought. I called Illinois Bell to have them install the second line. For the base activation charge they sent out a man to bring my second line "up to the wall"; in this case, to the distribution panel in the building's utility room. This he did. He said he really wasn't supposed to, but he had the time so he tried to find a pair in the apartment to connect it to. No luck. Not a single connection, other than my original phone line. Somewhere in the building every pair was severed. The Bell guy suggested my maintenance people might be able to fix things up for me; otherwise he'd have to charge THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A *HALF* HOUR to run new wires. I called maintenance. "Sorry, not our job. Call Bell." Given the distance between my apartment and the utility room, I estimated running new wires would be a two-hour job. I didn't have $140 to drop on a new line, so I called Bell to cancel service on it. I was prepared to just kiss the $50 (or therabouts) for the activation call goodbye. After all, Bell *did* fullfil their half of the bargain. To my surprise, the service rep. got all charges (ALL charges!) attributed to that short-lived second line dropped from my bill! She'd checked with billing and verified that I had never actually used the line, so she (and her superior, I imagine) took pity on me. Score one for a helpful service rep. at Illinois Bell! I'm very good at giving directions, especially if | Steve King (708) 991-8056 I'm giving them to myself, 'cause I know what I'm | ...uunet!motcid!king talking about. | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:01 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging. I called rcvd a brochure on the service. I think it's a good idea and I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so (besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :). 1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message. How about expanding it to at least 5 hours? If I call a message in at 6AM CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM PST. Too early for most business calls... 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep" and replay it again. Of course this would make the call longer in duration but that could be billed back to the customer. I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations" are worked out! GRM 72307.1502@CompuServe.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #161 ****************************** ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 APPEARS NEXT THEN 162 FOLLOWS IT.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24803; 11 Mar 90 15:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10542; 11 Mar 90 14:11 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17898; 11 Mar 90 13:03 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:56:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #163 BCC: Message-ID: <9003111256.ab19488@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:55:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Jeffrey M. Schweiger] Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Bill Cerny] Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set [Julian Macassey] Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [David Tamkin] Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos [Jeff Carroll] Re: Sprint Plus [David Schanen] Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability [David Schanen] Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal [George S. Thurman] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Lou Judice] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 11 Mar 90 02:01:44 GMT Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA In article <4948@accuvax.nwu.edu> winter@apple.com (Patty Winter) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 2 of 11 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: <> Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is <>reached by dialing a toll-free number. dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 3 of 11 |Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey. |It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the |students practice. Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads |from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence? Determining whether or not 'moonlighting' is permitted, is usually left up to the organization's commander. There are some situations where a policy exists precluding certain types of 'moonlighting'. Any moonlighting that does take place is not supposed to interfere with normal responsibilities (ie., military duties, etc.). I am _not_ a spokesman in any way for the Defense Language Institute (DLI) at the Presidio of Monterey, and do not know what their policy is on these matters (or policies (plural), as there may very well be several levels to 'moonlighting' - student/staff, military/civilian, etc). There is also a large number of people living in the Monterey area who were previously associated with the military installations here, liked the area, and either stayed or returned after terminating an active association (retiring, or just leaving) with DoD. That's a source of people who would not have to worry about 'moonlighting' policy for those in active DoD employ. Also, DLI is not the only language school in Monterey (or actually, school teaching languages). The Monterey Institute of International Studies is a private upper-division and graduate school which includes languages in its curricula. There must also be both a supply and a demand for translator/ interpreter services in the Monterey area, as there are a number of such services listed in the Monterey Yellow Pages. ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 10 Mar 90 17:32:03 GMT In article <4923@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: > The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to >telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects... Ever wonder how they staff this? > Based in Monterey, California... Ah, across the street from the Defense Language Institute! 8-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 11 Mar 90 04:26:54 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4955@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: > In article <4868@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) > writes: > > In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: > > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 > > Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that > > you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid > > the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard > > Walkman type headset is what I need. > There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It > is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304. > (818) 715-9096. And just hours after I posted the above about the WICOM unit I decided to read my March 1990 edition of INBOUND/OUTBOUND. This is a telecom related freebee magazine from Harry Newton's ego factory. They have a section devoted to headsets - worth a read. They also have an article on the WICOM I mentioned before (Page 77). There is an 800 number for WICOM: (800) 942-6601. Also their FAX number (818) 715-9067. But there is another cordless phone that takes a "Walkman" type headset. It is called the "Roamafone" by VXI, Rollinsford, New Hampshire. It is a modified Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone. It costs more than the WICOM - $375 - and does not have a model with an FM radio. Yours, Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 14:07:55 CST Paul Wilczynski wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 155: | I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. | They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business | office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us | any more". Applause, applause, applause! (Serious applause to NET, not sarcastic applause to Mr. Wilczynski.) That's what happens when you cry "Wolf!" several hundred thousand times too often. 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: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Date: 10 Mar 90 08:02:38 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Two or three years ago I got, on my monthly cable bill, a miniature questionnaire about whether I owned a personal computer, what type, etc. I filled it out (avid consumer of high technology that I am), but that was the last I heard of it. Viacom claimed that they were considering adding "enhanced services". Did anyone else get something like this? Does anyone know if anything came of it? My guess is that the cable guys (at least here in Bellevue, where the cable service is right out of the Stone Age) decided that anything that involved real engineering was out of their ballpark. (Anyone for rec.cabletv.stupid-company-stories?) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Date: 11 Mar 90 13:30:03 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing Hello net, Maybe I can help a little bit here. I am an Independent Marketing Representative for, a marketing group representing US Sprint. Here is the information I dug up on it. Effective July 17, 1989 - October 16, 1989 When I signed someone on Sprint Plus they could get $25 credit on they're January 1990 bill (from Sprint) Sprint Plus: Minimum charge of $8 per month. Night Rates start at 5pm instead of 11pm. (50% off day rates) (all bulk use discounts apply to interstate usage only) With $25 monthly usage you get 5% off all 8am-5pm usage and 10% off all 5pm-8am usage. With $100 monthly usage you get an additional 5% off 5pm-8am usage. With $200 monthly usage you get a total of 20% off 5pm-8am usage. Hope this helped, -Dave ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability Date: 11 Mar 90 13:41:34 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing I contacted my local operator (Pacific Northwest Bell) for this very information. The first operator I recieved refused to give me the information so I asked for her supervisor who after some chiding eventually gave to a man with the list (I'm not sure of his position) he was very helpful and read off a list of some 30 or so 0XXX codes including carriers that were coin only! ( I don't think he meant to do that :) It took a good half an hour but I got the info I wanted. So maybe if you push a little you can get the information. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 15:05 EST From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal Are any TELECOM Digest readers familiar with the data terminal from PHILIPS, with the model # of MINITEL 1? I need user information. Thanks, George S. Thurman MCI MAIL ID 405-6081 [Moderator's Note: I might add George and I (we are neighbors and friends of many years) also need the User Manual for the Hewlitt-Packard terminal, Model 2629-E. George got two of them and sold one to me. They're quite nice, older (circa 1982) terminals with thermal printers built into the top. Any documentation on how to operate them or his Phillips Minitel 1 will be appreciated. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 07:32:56 PST From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos It's interesting, because wrong numbers usually come in either one's or 3-4 in a row. Clearly the MEANEST way of dealing with this was in the film "Ruthless People", when the Danny DeVito character received a wrong number for Matilda. "No, I'm sorry, Matilda can't come to the phone right now because she's ******* ** ***** (use your imagination)". This of course only works for certain combinations of male/female callers and call-ee's. I certainly don't recommend it, and also certainly have never had the nerve to do it! :) /ljj ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #163 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24808; 11 Mar 90 15:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10542; 11 Mar 90 14:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17898; 11 Mar 90 13:03 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:17:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #162 BCC: Message-ID: <9003111217.ab03371@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:15:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications [Jane M. Fraser] Reach Out And Touch DGI [Havana Moon] Billing and Answer Supervision in Frankfurt [David Lesher] Denmark Charges for Time Off-Hook Also [Julian Macassey] More Greed [John Higdon] Unlisted Stats [Kenneth Jongsma] Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor [Joel P. Krigsman] Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 12:29:10 est From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications Seven lectures will be presented at Ohio State University during the spring quarter on the topic "Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values, and Telecommunications." The lectures are free and open to the public; They are being sponsored by the Battelle Endowment for Technology and Human Affairs. This article is being posted by Jane M. Fraser, Associate Director, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 (614-292-4129) (email: fraser-j@eng.ohio-state.edu). The material was drawn from material provided by Dr. Reeves. For several centuries, print culture has been of central importance to Western societies. To be literate has meant to be able to read and write the words of the vernacular language and to be able to generate meaning through the written word. At present we are in the throes of a profound transformation toward new types of literacies as the result of the confluence of the elecronic communications technologies of television, interactive networks, and computer graphics. The specific forms othat this transformation will take, and the groups of opeople whom it will empower or affect detrimentally, will depend on the ways that access to (that is, literacy in) these technologies is controlled. The lecture series will explore a variety of literacies required by or made possible by modern telecommunications, their value structures, and their impacts on our values as individuals and as a society. These include traditional literacy and numeracy, "pictoriacey" (image literacy), literacy in the critical use of television, computer interactions including scientific visulaization and questions of personal identity, and the "audiovisual literacy" of empowerment through access to telecommunications media and information. All presentations will be held 7-9 PM in Room 100 Stillman Hall, 1947 College Road, Ohio State University campus, Columbus, OH. A public, pay, parking facilty (ARPS garage) is located across the street, accessible from College Road and from N. High St. All presentations, except the first, are on Thursdays. Tuesday, 3 April 1990: Brian Stock, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto "Literacy and Values Then and Now". Definitions and meanings of print literacy. Associated value complexes (critical, abstract thinking, individual autonomy). Why redefine literacy now? Thursday, 12 April 1990 John Fiske, University of Wisconsin-Madison "Teleliteracy and the Conditions of Reception" Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois-Urbana "The Discipline of Culture and the Technologies of Discipline: It's Hard to be a Saint in the City" Values of television and video manipulation; television as oral subculture? Television watching as passive process? Values of orality: social relatedness? Video manipulation as active process. Thursday, 19 April 1990 Barbara Mihalas, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Urbana Richard Mark Friedhoff, Visicom Corporation, Los Angeles "Pictoriacy" (image literacy) as bridge between media: scientific visualization as highly interactive process. Changing scientists' imaginations and intuitions about how natural phenomena behave. Enlarging our conception of science; transforming scientific literacy for citizens. Thursday, 26 April 1990 Cheris Kramarae, University of Oregon Andrew Ross, Princeton University "Computer Hackers" Personal computers and identity in a teleliterate world. Computer use as highly interactive "world-making." Gender issues in computer use. Thursday, 3 May 1990 Herbert Schiller, University of California-San Diego "Welcome to the Two-tiered Society" Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., University of Pennsylvania "The Cybernetic Triage: Inequality in the Information Age" Ownership of media and sources of information. Privatization. Equity issues. Thursday, 10 May 1990 Dee Dee Halleck, Paper Tiger TV Kevin Wilson, Teleuniversite, Montreal "The Access/Control Paradox in the New Electronic Media for the Home" Thursday, 17 May 1990 Mark Poster, University of California-Irvine "Derrida and Computer Writing" More information can be obtained from Dr. Barbara Reeves or Toni Mortimer at: Center for Comparative Studies 614-292-2559 306 Dulles Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 ------------------------------ From: ckp@cup.portal.com Subject: Reach Out And Touch DGI Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 11:52:51 PST The following item by Havana Moon appeared originally in The Umbra et Lux Newsletter - a monthly publication which focuses on Signals and Communica- tions Intelligence (SIGINT/COMINT), espionage and counter-intelligence. It is reposted here with permission. Umbra et Lux is published by DX/SWL Press, 10606-8 Camino Ruiz, Suite 174-kk, San Diego, CA 92126. $18/year domestic, $24/year international. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= THE "REACH OUT AND TOUCH THE DGI" PHONE SERVICE PUT ON HOLD Mimi Whitefield, a Miami Herald staff writer (that's an Uzi City Daily, folks), reports in the 2/14/90 edition that a new under- water cable that would improve the congested telephone service between the United States and Cuba was completed last April. Un- fortunately, no one in Florida - or in Cuba, for that matter - has been able to use the line. After a mere $7 million cash outlay, I imagine the Board Room types at AT&T are somewhat less than thrilled with this state of affairs. Seems the culprit is the US Trade Embargo which limits US companies' ability to do business with Cuba. This Embargo has been in effect for nearly three decades and is designed to isolate Cuba economically and cut it off from US Dollars - and the issue here is the restric- tion on transferring the $220,000 a year it will take for the Cuban Telephone Company to maintain and service the connection. Meanwhile, the cable between Cojimar and West Palm Beach sits - and phone calls to Cuba are as hard to place as ever. An AT&T spokesman says roughly 40 million attempts to "phone home" are made annually - with only about 400,000 of these attempts actually completed - simply because there aren't enough circuits. This issue is especially hot in South Florida, where 85% of the calls to Cuba originate. Another reason AT&T is anxious to get this cable in service is due to the current over-the-horizon radio service to Cuba which uses a frequency assigned to Southern Bell for mobile cellular phones. Spokesmen say that AT&T's Cuba calls occupy the frequency and interfere with Southern Bell's ability to provide cellular service. So reach out and touch someone - courtesy of Ma Bell - but you may find yourself camped out in that phone booth for a long, long time . . . Hold on, Fidel! (c) 1990, MoonBeam Press ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 9:12:12 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher This discussion started talking about the 'toll saver' feature of answering machines. John Higdon said: >Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the >charges for unanswered calls. {and comments on charging for both busy and no-answer calls} >No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my >messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages." According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is ringing, busy or hung at the switch. Wouldn't that be just *great* on FTS, guys?? (For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio) A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook Date: 11 Mar 90 05:14:02 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4958@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work > yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. > As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. > After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a > charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't > answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number > and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! When I lived in Denmark. You paid for communication attempts. If you picked up the handset to see if you could get dialtone - ding 25 oere for local call. If you kept it off hook, you kept paying. Then L. M. Ericsson came out with the Ericafone. The problem with the Ericafone was that it didn't go on hook very positively. After a few people complained about massive bills after the phone had been of hook for a day or two they changed the billing for phones off hook. As I recall they only charged you for the first hour of "off hook operation". But wait, there's more... When you dialed a long distance number, the long distance charges started immediatly after the number was dialled and you were billed for the time on the line (sometimes 2 second increments on international calls), whether you spoke to anyone on the other end or not. Want to call the operator and complain? That will be 25 oere - thanks. Emergency calls (dial 000) were free, How comforting. Think how much better service could get if GTE moved into Denmark. > Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the > facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call > attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would > sure put war dialers out of business! Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be paid for. A good incentive not to supply service. Kinda ironic that the "Erlang" was named after a Danish telephony engineer. 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: More Greed Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 10 Mar 90 19:27:50 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon For you toll-saver dissenters, a question: How would you feel about this?-- Many people have answering machines that answer on the fourth or fifth ring all the time. This enables them to leave the machine on at all times without having to bother to turn it on when they leave. When they are home, they answer the phone before the machine does. When they are gone the machine eventually answers the phone. I know people who do this. When I call them, if there is no answer on the fourth ring, I assume they are out and hang up before the machine answers since I just called to BS anyway. I have not been charged for the call, but I know they are out and I didn't get stung by the answering machine. How about passing a law saying that you must let the phone ring ten times for each call attempt:-) But take heart. Nynex some time ago took a major step in this arena. In some smoke-filled board room a few years back, it was decided that there was a lot of traffic directed to its choke network (radio request lines, contest lines, etc.) that was not generating revenue because of busies and ACB reorders. So the courageous, pioneering practice of charging for all calls to any choke number was instituted. No answer? You pay. Busy? You pay. All circuits busy? You pay. Nynex equipment trouble? You pay. That knowledge ought to warm some hearts. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: However, see the two messages before yours in this issue. Some countries do charge for the time the phone is *being used* -- not just during the time a connection is established. Anyway, my complaint was not that you let it ring for some period of time, make some assumptions about the person at the other end and disconnect. It was the practice of using *coded ringing by pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling because we planned it this way. PT] ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Unlisted Stats Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 PST The folowing chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc. Percentage of Telephone Numbers Unlisted Las Vegas 60.3% San Francisco 47.7% New York 36.5% Washington DC 26.2% Atlanta 23.8% Minneapolis 15.8% Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: "GRRRRRR.....(----IT A DOGGY'S BAD DAY" Subject: Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 EST Hi! I am a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology majoring in Telecommunications which was recently offered. Currently, I am taking a course called "Telecommunications Fundamentals" this quarter. The textbook for this course is "Data Communications: A User's Guide", 3rd ed., by Ken Sherman. I'm looking for a mentor (or someone who doesn't mind helping out) who can assist me via electronic mail with any questions that I might have during the quarter. If you don't mind helping me out, please let me know. Thank you very much!! Joel P Krigsman Bitnet: JPK1521 @ RITVAX ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush? Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 18:01:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Daniel Shorr of NPR's Weekend Edition suggested that after the great Hashemi Rafsunjani phone call hoax, George may wish to get Caller-ID. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #162 ******************************  ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 CAME AHEAD OF 162 IN THE ARCHIVES. 164 NOW FOLLOWS.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04724; 12 Mar 90 8:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05092; 12 Mar 90 7:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06888; 12 Mar 90 6:14 CST Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 5:53:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #164 BCC: Message-ID: <9003120553.ab04346@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Mar 90 05:52:03 CST Volume 10 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson More on LoD [Gene Spafford] File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.) [S. Jain] AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz [Bob Jacobson] What Happens With Lithuania Now? [Henry Mensch] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon] Re: More Greed [John Higdon] Re: More Greed [John Wasilko] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Joel M. Snyder] White House "Caller ID" [Michael Katzmann] Re: Additional Caller ID Information [Bernie Roehl] Re: Unlisted Stats [Randal Schwartz] Sprint WD-40 Number? [Michael Fetzer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Spafford Subject: More on LoD Date: 12 Mar 90 00:54:50 GMT Reply-To: Gene Spafford Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University For those of you believing that the LoD indictments are mean-spirited attempts to kill the fun of a couple of kids, the following information should be of interest. This is taken from my monthly "Guide to Computer Law" update bulletin, derived from a Dept. of Justice news release: Three people have been indicted in Atlanta under five federal laws in connection with their activities with the "Legion of Doom." The indictment includes charges of conspiracy to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, access code fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property. Each of them has ALSO been charged with four counts of wire fraud and one count of possesion of access code with intent to defraud. The article claims that the LoD has been alleged to consist of approximately fifteen individuals in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Florida and other states. An investigation into their activities is continuing. One other person has also been charged in a separate indictment in Chicago in connection with the theft and disclosure of Bell South's 911 software. The cases and federal districts involved are listed as "US v. Grant a.k.a. the Urvile a.k.a. Necron 99 a.k.a. Darden a.k.a. The Leftist, and Riggs a.k.a. The Prophet" in the northern district of Georgia; US v. Riggs a.k.a. Robert Johnson a.k.a. The Prophet, and Neirdorf a.k.a. Knight LIghtning" in the northern district of Illinois. For the interested, I think the laws involved (all from U.S.C. Title 18) are sections 1030, 1029 and 1343. Section 1905 (disclosure of confidential information such as trade secrets) may also be involved. These guys are facing long prison sentences if found guilty of even a few of these.... Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 11 Mar 1990 15:41:26 EST From: SXJ101@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.) I am trying to hack together a circuit that would receive data from another site. I will be using a parity odd/even scheme to check for errors in transmission. But, I would also like to correct any errors that may arise without retransmission via adding more info to the transmission message so I can correct the parrity errors. Does anyone know if this is possible and where I can find a circuit (logic diagram) for this animal? Thank you, s. jain ------------------------------ From: Bob Jacobson Subject: AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz Date: 11 Mar 90 23:43:27 GMT Reply-To: Bob Jacobson Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA The WALL STREET JOURNAL reports that AT&T has officially thrown its hat into the credit-card business ring. The telephone calling-card number will become the equivalent of your bankcard number; in fact, it WILL BE your bankcard number if you use the AT&T VISA or Mastercard. Putting two and two together, it becomes apparent that Caller ID (via 800 and 900 services) and this credit-card application of the telephone number make for a potent telemarketing and sales tool. Any thoughts on the subject? Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 21:53:11 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: What Happens With Lithuania Now? Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu What happens to Lithuania once (if) they are separated from the Soviet Union's telephone network? Do they get their own country code and the like? REFERENCE: "Expressing the will of the people, the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian Republic declares and solemnly proclaims the restoration of the exercise of sovereign powers of the Lithuanian state, which were annulled by an alien power in 1940. From now on, Lithuania is once again an independent state." -- Resolution approved by the Lithuanian Parliament. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 11 Mar 90 15:09:44 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon David Lesher writes: > (For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to > Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the > wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio) I am convinced that one of the factors responsible for the excellent call completion rates in the United States is the traditional practice of answer supervision billing. As I mentioned, PacTel Cellular used to charge its customers for all call attempts regardless of the outcome. During that time call completion was a rigged crapshoot in favor of the house. It was better than an even-money bet that any given call would end in a reorder, for which the caller would be charged ("uses air time, you know"). Now that they have apparently dropped this practice, calls are completed much more reliably. GTE Mobilnet, which has always started the clock in this area upon supervision, has always completed calls swiftly and dependably. If a telco gets paid for every call attempt, successfully completed or not, then what incentive is there to provide any kind of decent service? As Julian Macassey put it in his related article: > Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was > told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be > paid for. A good incentive not to supply service. This was PacTel Cellular's argument (maybe they should have been providing service abroad), but I give you as exhibits A and B, respectively, their quality of service before halting the practice of charging for all call attempts, and after. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Greed Date: 11 Mar 90 15:28:29 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon On Mar 11 at 12:17, TELECOM Moderator writes: > It was the practice of using *coded ringing by > pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang > up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling > because we planned it this way. PT] Sounds like a great use for Caller-ID. If someone sees on the display that he doesn't want to talk to the caller and decides not to answer the phone as a result, should there be a charge? A hell of a lot of information has been passed! An answering machine I have on the drawing board, but have not had the energy or the need to prototype it yet, among other things works like this: It is PC-based and has (at least) two lines. One answers the listed number where callers leave their messages and the other answers an unlisted line where the owner calls to retrieve same. If there are new messages, the unlisted line answers on the first ring. If not, the unlisted line never answers. This is, in essence, rich-man's Toll Saver. Anyone have a problem with this? Do you feel that a mechanical answering device *must always* answer the phone, even if it has no communication for the caller (owner)? If you approve of this technique, why then do you object to an economical equivalent for the common man (Toll Saver)? My point is simply that unless you do bill for all call attempts, there is no way the passing of "free" information can be prevented. Attempts to do so will push the system closer and closer to the "bill all attempts" doctrine; something that could ruin the high grade of service we currently enjoy in the US. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Indeed, as you phrased it, it is a good example of Caller ID. But -- Caller ID *is* being charged for! Its not being given away free by United Charities. So information is in fact being passed (do you or don't you accept the call?) whether or not the phone is answered and billing supervision begins. And the person who subscribes to the Caller ID as a source of information pays for it, regardless of whether or not the caller also pays for it (by having his connection established.) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 16:46:34 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: More Greed The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too. My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise. Jeff ------------------------------ From: "Joel M. Snyder" Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 11 Mar 90 19:49:21 GMT Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone. In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges. In the voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the data world. On the standards committees I'm a member of, the telcos, rbocs, and long distance carriers are always VERY concerned about network resource usage, and they will likely be charging you for all use of the network as you use it, rather than by creating a blanket charge. Thus, calls into a network which are never delivered, calls which are cleared by the recipient, and other "pre-connection" activities will all be something you will pay for. Naturally, the way this is all accounted for is a business decision of each provider, but be assured that the "phone company" is making sure that the standards support passing information which would be necessary for billing such attempts to the appropriate accounting systems. On a related note, and merely brushing caller-id into the conversation, this issue is always discussed with great humor in standards meetings, because, of course, from day one, calls are delivered with the "calling address" field in all protocols -- X.25, X.75 (as such), and the relevant packet-based ISDN protocols. What may be traditional in the voice world is highly irregular in the data one, and we may find that as the networks migrate towards ISDN services that either (a) all of the protocols are rewritten to deal with privacy issues or (b) the issue dies a loud and noisy death when the data people say "don't screw with what works, unless you're willing to $pay$ for it." Joel Snyder U Arizona CARAT Project [Moderator's Note: I have never called for charging people for 'ring-no-answer' as such. I have only stated that structured and pre- arranged ringing patterns -- where someone on the receiving end hears the ringing and perceives a message from it -- should be illegal if not paid for. This includes answering machines which 'listen' to rings and in effect give a message by refusing to answer after the second ring. The telco agrees: IBT's 'Identi-Call' service, where up to three separate numbers can be camped on one line, with a distinctive ringing pattern for each costs about $5 for each number assigned. And of course Caller ID, which as Mr. Higdon notes definitly delivers a message regardless of an actual connection being established, also costs money. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 90 18:31:28 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: White House "Caller ID" Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home Perhaps C&P can provide the White House with caller id! But then again George Bush would have to be able to recognize the the Iranian Speaker's number. (Yes, yes I know it wouldn't work from Iran) ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Re: Additional Caller ID Information Date: 11 Mar 90 21:58:16 GMT Reply-To: Bernie Roehl Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Having heard all the discussion about caller identification, I'm curious as to how it's done. I know how it works with ISDN sets (vaguely), but how do they do it with standard analog subscriber loops? Is it sent between rings? If so, in what format? Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu OR broehl@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl Voice: (519) 747-5056 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Unlisted Stats Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:55:26 GMT In article <5019@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ken@cup writes: | The following chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire | Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc. Makes me wonder how they came up with the stats... "Hello, I'm from Survey Sampling. Is the randomly selected number my computer just dialed to talk to you listed or unlisted? ... Hello? ... Hello?" :-) Just another listed number (and paying up the yin-yang to be that way!), /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/ ------------------------------ From: rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) Subject: Sprint WD-40 Number? Date: 11 Mar 90 03:56:31 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA I got my Sprint card through WD-40, with the 60 minutes free. I was just telling a friend about it. He wants the number, and I can't think of it. 1-800-xxx-wd40? Can someone email it to me, please? Mike UUCP: uunet!serene!pnet12!rider or ucsd!mfetzer ARPA: crash!pnet12!rider@nosc.mil INET: rider@pnet12.cts.com or mfetzer@ucsd.edu BITNET: fetzerm@sdsc [Moderator's Note: Surely. The number to call is 1-800-FON-WD40 (800-366-8340). But don't call until you have studied for the test they give you! You'll need to answer two questions about the use of WD-40 to remove rust and other accumulated crud. The answers to both questions are yes. If you don't want to listen to the commercial, just punch '1' as soon as it answers; then pause, punch '1' again, (pause), then '1' a third time. You'll be congratulated as a winner, and connected to the Business Office. And the prize is actually about $5, payable as a credit on your *third* bill. You'll pay a 75 cent surcharge on each call. Whatta deal! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #164 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07031; 12 Mar 90 17:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08546; 12 Mar 90 8:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05092; 12 Mar 90 7:20 CST Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 7:00:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #165 BCC: Message-ID: <9003120700.ab03445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Mar 90 07:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Tad Cook] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne] Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [John Higdon] Re: T1 Mux Info Needed [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Sprint Plus [Rich Sims] Telesphere Long Distance Service [Robert Kaplan] Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards [Antonio Martinez Mas] Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX [David Leibold] Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller [Shawn Goodin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 12 Mar 90 03:07:14 GMT Organization: very little In the Seattle area I can call without toll charge to a very wide area into the suburbs, but most of the suburbs cannot call each other without paying toll. I have a Centrex like service called 2-line Residential Centraflex. One of the features is Call Transfer. Anyone can call me, give me a number, and I can hookflash, then dial the number and hang up. This ties up a trunk or two in the CO, but not my line. As long as the person calling me does not pay toll to reach me, and I don't call long distance, no one pays. There are some BBSs north of here in Snohomish County that have a similar function, only automated. I have not tried it, but they can transfer calls from Seattle to Everett. I think one or two of them may use FX lines in the scheme, but I am not sure how. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 11 Mar 90 09:58:44 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 159, Message 8 of 11 >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? A local BBS uses Call Forwarding to achieve this. His BBS is situated in a suburb of Vancouver which is a free call from most parts of Vancouver. But from some of the other suburbs it's a long distance call (which is really strange in some cases, for example it's long distance for me, but I'm only about 10km away, vs about 25km for downtown Vancouver which is free). He has a friend in the downtown area who allowed him to install a phone line with call forwarding. It is permanently setup to forward to the BBS number. This means I can call his number in Vancouver and be forwarded to the real number without any toll charges. To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance, A to C via call forwarding in B is free. Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) [Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except* for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the basic monthly charge? Have you any idea who uses it, and how frequently? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging Date: 11 Mar 90 11:49:04 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> writes: > 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my > message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but > I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better > idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. Expanding on that a little, what about businesses that have automated attendants? Frequently there is a considerable amount of canned verbage before the default kicks in and you are connected with a live attendant. By the time any human would be available to hear the announcement, it would long be completed. Also, when one calls the Higdon Manor he is greeted by a machine that has no default. A DTMF digit must be entered, or the machine ultimately hangs up without doing anything. (It's 1990, and I have no desire to deal with anyone who can't generate DTMF!) I'm sure that Voicemark will not listen to my menu and make the correct selection! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: T1 Mux Info Needed Date: 11 Mar 90 23:27:06 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35 >subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our >switch. This is called a "drop and insert" function. You might want to get something like a copy of Telecommunications and call some of the small T1 mux vendors and describe what you need. I can't recommend a particular one, but a knowledgable sales person should be able to steer you in the right direction. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 13:19:04 EST From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Sprint Plus In-Reply-To: message from drilex!carols@husc6.harvard.edu > Anyone know > if AT&T is sending out Reach Out America brochures directly to its > customers? (Not that it needs to, given the massive ad campaign...) I've got several lines with different billing options, and Reach Out America on one "set". AT&T sends notices of updates of the ROA service based on that subscription. AT&T is also the LD carrier on the other lines, not covered by the ROA plan, and whenever one of those lines runs up a bill that would have been lower with ROA, I get a notice about it, urging me to subscribe to the plan. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 02:55:35 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Telesphere Long Distance Service In a special issue last week, the Moderator noted that Telesphere, the Chicago-based provider of 900 numbers, is also an AOS provider. He also mentioned that Telesphere's AOS is somewhat disreputable. I'd like to provide confirmation of that. Brandeis University Telecommunications contracts with Telesphere to provide 0+ service from all student phones. While I don't have prices immediately at hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint. Service is also poor; Telesphere will not make person-to-person calls from campus phones, claiming they have no way of billing. Essentially, all they will do is charge a small fortune for making collect calls. The only way around it, as I have noted earlier, is to use 950-[0|1]XXX to access rthe LD carrier of your choice, or ask the Telesphere operator to connect you to AT&T. Connection to AT&T this way takes an extra 60 seconds and involves waiting through some excruciatingly loud tones. BTW, AT&T has no problems connecting person-to-person calls and billing for them. I suppose it could be worse though; when I went down to Brandeis Telecommunications' office to complain that 10XXX didn't work, the lady there said that "Telesphere is a lot better than the last company we dealt with." I don't think I want to know how bad the last company was... What I want to know, then, is what Brandeis' incentive to use Telesphere might be? Is the university possibly getting a cut of Telesphere's revenue on collect calls? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. P.S. If you want to see for yourself, Telesphere's 10XXX code is 10555. If anyone can get them to complete a person-to-person call, I'd like to know about it. [Moderator's Note: Their 'incentive' for using Telesphere is that they receive a much larger commission on calls handled/billed for than AT&T was giving them. Telesphere rates are much higher (as you have found out) and the difference is 'passed on' to the organization running the phones, in this case, your school. They are really a sleazebag bunch, but for 900 service, which is sleazy by its nature, I would probably use them if I wanted a 900 line. Do you remember in the early days of divestiture (and even before) how some of the OCC's and these AOS creeps used to advertise how much cheaper and better their service was than that provided by AT&T? Americans got what they were asking for! PT] ------------------------------ From: Antonio Martinez Mas Subject: Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards Date: 9 Mar 90 17:44:20 GMT Reply-To: Antonio Martinez Mas Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain I am trying to find X.25 communications boards at high speeds, for mainframes or minis and PC,s. The bit rate required is 2 Mbps for the host comm. board and at least 1 Mbps for the personal computer board. An alternative solution to the X.25 may be any other connection oriented protocol at the required speed (may be with the ISDN Hxx channels). Has anyone out there had any experience with such boards? Any suggestions of a possible vendors? ! o ! Antonio Martinez Mas --! !-!- Departamento de Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos ! ! ! ! ETSI Telecomunicacion \_ ! ! !_ Ciudad Universitaria s/n 28040 MADRID; SPAIN U P M tel.(..34-1)5495700 ext 367; fax.(..34-1)2432077 ................................................................... ------------------------------ Subject: Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 20:31:46 EST From: woody Well, 416 now requires 1+10D for all long distance (as is North Carolina by now, and perhaps everywhere else in a few years). None of the exchanges of the N 0/1 X format have shown up yet, though one new NNX-style exchange has appeared in service in Toronto a few days into March. Here are some other observations I found courtesy of PunterNet: Msg # : 29 of 81 - Ref 111/207 From : JIM BOYCE To : ALL Posted : 0613h on 21-Jan-90 * CONF 130 Subject: The 416 changeover... Just a short note. I noticed the other day, when I did a change on my board to allow for the new dialing system ( By dialing 1+416 for ALL 416 long distance calls. No more dialing 1+number) I found out that the BBS was dialing 416+number for LOCAL calls. Not 1+416, but just 416+number. Where I am it WORKED! The call was completed. I tried it many times and the result was the same. Local Bell staff were of ne help not knowing if it is normal or not. I don't see how having to dial 416+number would be normal UNLESS this is a sign of things to come!!! Jim Boyce - SysOp K.E.B. SYSTEM IV * Node 111 ----------------------------------- [This is likely a situation for certain exchanges only. I tried it from my residence and it stopped after the 416 with a recording. djcl] ----------------------------------- K.E.B. SYSTEM IV - Thornhill, ONT * Node 111 Msg # : 32 of 81 - Ref 111/210 From : JIM BOYCE To : ROMAN KOWALCZUK Posted : 1056h on 24-Jan-90 * CONF 130 Subject: Bell 416 changeover... Actually I think, although I'm sure it would upset loads of people, that Bell should make ALL local communities to Toronto AND Toronto a DIFFERENT area code. The time will come when they will use up the 20% that they generated and if they integrated something like this now while things are still on a small scale they would have less problems. Actually it would be better to give Toronto the 416 code and the rest of 416 could be reassigned. There is more people in Toronto and area so it only seems logical. Sooner or later it will happen but by that time it will be more difficult. Jim Boyce - SysOp K.E.B. SYSTEM IV * Node 111 ------------------------------------------- || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp || "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" - Bruce Cockburn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:10:28 EST From: Shawn Goodin Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller In-Reply-To: message from foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu >getting rid of the dedicated Wrong-number caller.... Since Jody Kravitz expressed her aggrievation over her roommate's friends using her phone by forwarding her calls to the time and temperature lady, I thought I'd mention a problem I had. I once worked for a major GM division in the Chicago area. I was being annoyed by calls from headhunters and unable to get much work done at times. One day, I followed the maintenance personnel up to the roof to oversee the replacement of a circuit breaker in the power systems of our computer center. As I climbed the various ladders and steps to the roof, I noted three telephones -- one at the top of the ladder, one on the roof in a weatherproofed housing, and one in the power room. I noted the phone numbers of all three phones. The following day when the calls began again, I sent out a memo asking folks to call me at a different number (actually the phone on a vacant desk next to mine). I then took my regular desk phone and set call-forwarding (Centrex) to dial the number on the roof. It was nice to have silence again ...... and I imagine that if someone did answer the phone on the roof, it resulted in a very interesting conversation. Shawn UUCP: ....!crash!pro-charlotte!shawng | Pro-Charlotte - (704) 567-0029 ARPA: crash!pro-charlotte!shawng@nosc.mil | 300-9600 baud (HST) 24 hrs/day INET: shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com | Log in as "register" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #165 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00449; 13 Mar 90 3:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16781; 13 Mar 90 1:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21004; 13 Mar 90 0:22 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:00:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #166 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130000.ab10763@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:00:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News [Middlesex News via Adam M. Gaffin] Citicorp Hackers [John Markoff] SW Bell in Mexico [Will Martin] Telecoms in Brazil [Nigel Whitfield] 900 With a Twist [Jeffrey Silber] Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore] Sprint and Three-way Calling [Steve Elias] Cellular Privacy [Jeff DeSantis] Looking For International Network Managers [Sharon Fisher] An Idea For Using Caller*ID [Amanda Walker] Oops! A Typo Needing Correction [Tom Lowe] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:20:48 EST From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News [Moderator's Note: This story appeared in the Middlesex News (Framingham, MA) on Monday, March 12. Mr. Gaffin indicated to me he intends to do a followup story in his column next week also. PT] The operator of an Illinois computer bulletin-board system apparently helped federal officials crack a multi-state ring of hackers now charged with breaking into a computer system running a 911 system in the South and distributing a highly technical on- line manual describing how to run - and disrupt - the system. Federal officials are not saying much about the investigation, except to say it is continuing, but observers in the telecommunications field say it may be widened to include a close look at hundreds of on-line break-ins and attempted break-ins of computers tied to the international Usenet network since last summer. Ironically, though, the Illinois system operator had his system seized by the government as evidence in the case. The government may also be seizing other bulletin-board systems the hackers may have used. And that raises some troubling questions about the protection of electronic mail and First-Amendment rights on electronic networks. Charged so far are four members of the ``Legion of Doom,'' which federal officials allege did things such as re-programming computerized phone switches and changing people's computerized credit ratings. Federal authorities were apparently aided by Rich Andrews, operator of Jolnet, one of a small but growing number of private systems connected to the Usenet international computer network (itself a part of the Internet research network). In an interview with Patrick Townson, who moderates a telecommunications conference on Usenet, Andrews says his involvement began about 18 months ago. According to Townson, Andrews noticed the 911 documentation had been uploaded to his system and promptly sent it to another Usenet-linked BBS operated by AT&T, with a request that it be sent to the right people there. Andrews acknowledged, though, that he then kept a copy of the text himself. A few months later, AT&T contacted him, asking him for the manual, and then the feds got in touch with him. It was then, about a year ago, Townson says, that Andrews decided to cooperate with the feds. According to Townson, Andrews said the 911 software was just ``a small part of what this is all about...'' As part of the investigation, Andrews did nothing about the Legion of Doom members allegedly using his system to pass the 911 manual back and forth and to develop programs to crack other systems, Townson says. If convicted, the alleged hackers face upwards of 30 years in jail and several hundred thousands of dollars in fines. The seizure of Andrew's system has a number of system operators worried. Unlike phone companies, which cannot be held liable for the actions of their subscribers, computer bulletin-board systems fall into one of those gray areas that remain unsettled. Already, Bill Kuykendall, who runs a Chicago system similar in operation to Jolnet, has tightened up his requirements for who he will let on the system. ``Today, there is no law or precedent which affords me, as owner and system administrator of The Point, the same legal rights that other common carriers have against prosecution should some other party (you) use my property (The Point) for illegal activities,'' he wrote in a recent message to users of his system. ``That worries me. ``By comparison, AT&T cannot be held liable should someone use their phone lines to transmit military secrets to an enemy. Likewise, Acme Trucking is not vulnerable to drug trafficking charges should they pull a sealed trailer of cocaine to some destination unknowingly. Yet somehow, I am presumed to be cognizant of the contents of every public message, mailed message, and file upload that passes through this public access system. On a system this size, that may be nearly a gigabyte (1+ Billion characters!) of information a year. ``I fully intend to explore the legal questions raised here. In my opinion, the rights to free assembly and free speech would be threatened if the owners of public meeting places were charged with the responsibility of policing all conversations held in the hallways and lavatories of their facilities for references to illegal activities. ``Under such laws, all privately owned meeting places would be forced out of existence, and the right to meet and speak freely would vanish with them. The common sense of this reasoning has not yet been applied to electronic meeting places by the legislature. This issue must be forced, or electronic bulletin boards will cease to exist.'' ----- end ----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 09:26:13 -0800 From: John Markoff Subject: Citicorp Hackers I checked that same story with telecommunications people at Citicorp about two months ago and after discussions with them, came away believing that nothing ever happened. My best guess is that the LoD kids write interesting fiction. John Markoff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 8:27:31 CST From: Will Martin Subject: SW Bell in Mexico A news article from the [St. Louis Post-Dispatch], March 7 '90: SW BELL TO HELP MEXICO MODERNIZE TELEPHONE NET Southwestern Bell Corp. will help Mexico modernize its telecommunications network under an agreement signed this week with the Mexican Institute of Technology. The agreement calls for SW Bell to help the institute train Mexican citizens in advanced telephone technology and design. SW Bell also will help the institute identify needs and resources for the Mexican telecommunications industry. "We're proud to be associated with such a prestigious university as ITAM," said Ross Spicer, president of SBC Technology Resources Inc., the SW Bell subsidiary that will work directly with the institute. ITAM is an acronym based on the institute's Mexican name. The institute is a leading Mexican university that specializes in economics, finance, business administration, computers, digital networks and information technology. The university is building a new center for research and post-graduate studies in telecommunications engineering and design. SBC Technology Resources Inc. helps SW Bell companies develop and assess new and emerging technology that can be applied to their businesses. ***End of article*** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:47:04 GMT From: Nigel Whitfield Subject: Telecoms in Brazil I am currently working on a project that may involve linking systems in Brazil to remotes in London, and I'd be grateful for any help that people can give me with the following questions. They may seem an odd bunch of requests, but we've still not decided much beyond that we want to establish a link. Anyway, here goes: 1) How tightly regulated is the Brazilian telecoms system; eg can we just buy a modem and plug it in ourselves, or do we have to go through the local Telco? 2) Assuming that it is possible to plug in a modem, are there any restrictions on what sort can be used; eg must it conform to Bell or CCITT specs, or would either do, and is there a limit on the maximum speed. 3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what facilities does it offer? 4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper than calling in the other direction? Well, I think that's most of what I need to know for now, but any other comments would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nigel. It's true I've been lead an amazing dance poet@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk But why should I ever complain? nigelw@ibmpcug.co.uk If I should be given a second chance n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk I'd live it all over again. ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Silber Subject: 900 With a Twist Date: 12 Mar 90 17:54:33 GMT Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting kids to run up their parents' phone bill). I saw a new twist on the 900 number this weekend. A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using one for part of their telethon. If you don't want to make a major pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember, your call will cost $5.00." "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." --Sen. Everett Dirksen Jeffrey A. Silber/silber@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:41:15 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Bellcore Number Busy On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639, is busy. How do I check what is wrong? [Moderator's Note: You don't check it. You just wait until it comes back up, if it ever does. Maybe the computer was down, and the line busied out as a result. Maybe it was deliberatly shut down. Who knows? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 08:30:05 -0500 From: Steve Elias YAAOUSS: (Yet Another Advantage Of US Sprint): Sprint's industry leading sound quality and volume levels are very handy when one is using 3 way calling to connect long distance parties... I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ From: Jeff DeSantis Subject: Cellular Privacy Date: 12 Mar 90 16:15:43 GMT Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA Reported in the POLITICAL JOURNAL column of the [Boston Sunday Globe] March 11, 1990 by Brian C. Mooney. THE LONER IN LOVE WITH HIS PHONE This story falls into the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction category. Last week, Globe columnist Mike Barnicle was driving his wife's car in the South End when the car phone rang. Barnicle's wife's office was trying to reach her. In the background, Barnicle heard a familiar voice and asked the caller to put him on hold. For the next few minutes, he listened to former Boston Mayor Kevin H. White giving advice to Democratic gubernatorial candidate John R. Silber. Among other things, White advised Silber on how to deal with the Globe. He also second-guessed Silber's decision to make Robert (Skinner) Donahue his campaign director. Donahue was a key operative of Joseph Timilty in the bitter 1975 White-Timilty mayoral campaign. "What are the chances of that happening?" said Barnicle of intercepting the call. "Probably pretty good," White said in an interview, confirming Barnicle's story. =============================================================================== Jeff DeSantis jjd@necis.nec.com NEC Technologies, Boxborough, MA necntc!necis!jjd ------------------------------ From: Sharon Fisher Subject: Looking For International Network Managers Date: 12 Mar 90 19:36:31 GMT Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA I'm doing a story for Network World about globalization of networks. I'm looking for network managers who can discuss the following issues: o ability to get foreign equipment inside the country and the ability to communicate between countries o types of services and links available o difficulties in transmitting information across borders o planning issues, including user groups and hiring o 'how-to' information for people setting up their first international network This isn't limited to Unix networks, PCs, or anything like that; in fact, the bigger the better. Please reply to me via email at sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us or slf@well.sf.ca.us Thanks! ------------------------------ From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: An Idea For Using Caller*ID Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:56:14 GMT In article <4993@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: > Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a > device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in > again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second > piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer. This is off the subject some, but it gave me (what at first blush seems to be) an interesting idea. Imagine, if you will, box that decides what piece of equipment to let answer the line based on the ANI burst between the first and second rings. That way, for example, I could have a single line which would ring my phone (or my answering droid) for most calls, but would put a fax machine on the line if I was being called by a number in set "A", or my computer on the line if I was bening called by a number in set "B", or whatever. I can see really being able to use such a thing. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi" ------------------------------ Subject: Oops! A Typo Needing Correction Date: 12 Mar 90 10:51:17 EST (Mon) From: Tom Lowe PT: You told us to call 1-800-FON-WD40 (1-800-366-8340) should have been 1-800-366-9340. Tom Lowe tel\@cdsdb1.ATT.COM [Moderator's Note: Indeed I did. Sorry. I was really concerned at the time about passing that difficult test they administer. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #166 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02826; 13 Mar 90 4:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27432; 13 Mar 90 2:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac16781; 13 Mar 90 1:27 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:48:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #167 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130048.ab24712@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:47:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bill Nickless] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Jeff Wolfe] Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service [John Higdon] Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service [Tom Lowe] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Robert E. Stampfli] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Colin Plumb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:01:43 CST From: Bill B40417 2-7390 Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charge In TELECOM Digest MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? And the moderator responds: >[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure >someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. >The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very >rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a >toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the >toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then >it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a >single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, >at least on shorter calls? PT] I can think of a situation where that strategy could be useful. I attend a small Christian university in Southwest Michigan called Andrews University. Andrews is affiliated with the Hinsdale Medical Center, located just outside of Chicago. Before we were connected to the Internet, one option we explored involved the use of a leased line that exists between the Michgan and Illinois campuses. We were going to put two modems on a simple timer, connected (naturally) with a null modem, and strap one of the modems to auto-answer. At night, when the leased line was not being used for Nursing Department business, we would try to contact a Chicago site local to Hinsdale for a USENET news feed. Fortunately, we became connected to the Internet and receive our news feed that way instead. The key advantage to this plan is that in involved no increase in funding from the University. The Nursing Department was already paying for 24 hours a day leased line service, of which 8 hours a day wasn't being used. We would have used those 8 hours without having to justify our news feed to the bean-counters in the administration building. By the way: in an earlier Digest there was some question as to my location. Donald E. Kimberlin wrote: >Commenting in part on the message from: >"Bill B40417 2-7390 " >(BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?) I thought it was rather funny, but just for the record here is an explanation of the various fields in the address: Bill: My first name B40417: My badge/payroll number 2-7390: My office phone number (full extension: (708) 972-7390) nickless: My last name and computer login flash: A Sun Microsystems SparcStation 1 (Flash, Spark, Get it? Oh well. We tried.... ;-) ) ras: Reactor Analysis & Safety Division of anl: Argonne National Laboratory gov: funded by the Department of Energy of the Federal Government. .signature under construction detour mail to nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 12 Mar 1990 13:13:25 EST From: Jeff Wolfe Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu>, MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) says: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it is. >[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure >someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. [ ... ... ] >toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then >it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a >single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, >at least on shorter calls? PT] I live in the same area as the original poster, and our Telco does allow free local calling, however I must dial a '1-xxx-xxxx' to call a town less than 7 miles from my house, when I can dial 'xxx-xxxx' to call a town 20 miles from my house. The toll boundaries seem to have no logical pattern. Is this a normal occurance? or are we just stuck in the dark ages? ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service Date: 12 Mar 90 16:00:10 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Robert Kaplan writes: > While I don't have prices immediately at > hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de > facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint. For your dining and dancing pleasure, I will share with you at least one sleazebag company's justification for stratospheric pricing in the long distance market. During the FCC hearings some time back (when people first were rudely awakened by COCOTs and AOSes, a spokesman for some company (it might have been ITI -- don't sue if I'm wrong) said that the "big three" LD carriers were purposely vulture pricing their services below the cost of providing them in order to drive the valient little Ma and Pa operations out of business. When you pay $10.00 for a three-minute call from San Francisco to Los Angeles, that is closer to the cost of providing the service than the "dumping-style" charges of those nasty big companies. And I always thought the "big three" conspired to keep the rates UP! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service Date: 12 Mar 90 10:34:26 EST (Mon) From: Tom Lowe GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> writes: > In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging. > I called and rcvd a brochure on the service. I think it's a good > idea and I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so > (besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :). > 1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message. How > about expanding it to at least 5 hours? If I call a message in at 6AM > CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM > PST. Too early for most business calls... You can specify delivery to begin up to 7 days in the future. I think you are confusing 2 hour delivery window with delay. By default, the system will attempt to deliver your message starting immediately and continuing for the next 2 hours. The 2 hour window can be changed to one, two, three or four hours. Specifying a delivery time is a major feature of the service. It is especially useful for deliverying messages internationally where the timezones are very far apart. > 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my > message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but > I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better > idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If > it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by > an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up > and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep" > and replay it again. Of course this would make the call longer in > duration but that could be billed back to the customer. The safest thing to do if you suspect there may be an answering machine at the destination is to send a "person-to-person" message in which an attendant will introduce a call. There are two flavors of "person-to-person": "Message taker allowed" and "no message taker". If you specify "Message Taker allowed" and an answering machine takes the call, the attendant will wait till the BEEP before starting the message. If you specify "No message taker", the attendant will not deliver the message and delivery will be attempted again later. As far as listening for voice, that's a tough issue. It's hard to reliably know if we have voice or noise or busy or dog barking or baby crying, etc. etc. Also, the system can't listen for voice at the other end while playing a message. It would hear itself talking. Also, we can't allow the attendant to stay on the line during the message for privacy issues. > I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the > service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations" > are worked out! You can use MasterCard or VISA, if you have them. To specify the above options, first record your message. When finished with the recording, you will be prompted: [blah.blah.blah] .. For immediate delivery press 1. For other delivery instructions, press 0. If you press 1, your message will be delivered for the next 2 hours. If you press 0, you will be able to follow the prompts to specify several options. If you need help at any point, you can press "*H" and you will be connected to an attendant who can answer any questions and also enter your options for you. Enjoy and thanks for the questions! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM VoiceMark(sm): 1-800-562-MARK ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Date: 12 Mar 90 16:49:31 GMT Organization: Summit NJ In an area related to people not understanding that they don't have the correct number of the person they're calling, here's a problem that I encountered. If anyone can possibly think why the person I called "lied" to me, let me know. Even before the 212/718 split of New York City, there were a lot (>2) of area codes in the area. NY City was 212, the two suburban Long Island counties are 516, and the northern suburbs, and up into the Catskills are 914. Also, businesses are branching out over the entire area, so if you have a company's 7-digit "headquarters" phone number, you have to know where it is or what the area code is. In my case, I had a problem with a Long Island based bank; my account was in a branch in Manhattan. When I called the branch, I was given the 7-digit of the main office, which I assumed to be a suburban Long Island number. So, I called (516) xxx-yyyy, and it was obvious I didn't call a bank office. So, in order to make sure that the error wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no". OK, so I called that number again, and of course the same person answered. Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make? I can always call them again whenever I want. (P.S., when I then called (212) etc, I got the bank office.) Any ideas as to why people act this way? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:39:51 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, ken@cup.portal.com writes: >I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some >airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the >phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax >machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary in the Nineties. Many of the airlines' clubs (paid membership type) are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time. A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?). Delta has its home base here in Atlanta and I think they would have the clout to pull something like that off if enough interest was shown to them. William A. Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 Diamonds are a girl's best friend, |uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill but a man's best friend is a dog. |Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | ------------------------------ From: Robert E Stampfli Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 12 Mar 90 19:16:05 GMT Reply-To: res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli,55216,cb,1C315,6148604268) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for something I cannot use. Rob Stampfli / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home) ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 12 Mar 90 19:48:20 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario This issue is basically one of a covert channel. The telephone company wants to charge for sending bits, and people have come up with non-obvious ways to get the bits across. But plugging covert channels is *hard*. I recently saw an ad for phone-controllable thermostats. One handled multiple zones, was intended for commercial buildings, and could be programmed by DTMF tones (the primary password was 4 digits; the supervisory one was 7 - it seemed adequate). The other was for residential use; the suggested use was a cottage. It didn't plug into the phone line at all. It heard the telephone ringing through a microphone. If you called once, let the phone ring a certain number of times (3-7, I think), hung up, then called back within 30 seconds and let the phone ring another certain number of times, it would heat the house up for a few hours so when you arrived at your cottage, it would be warm. Various people may believe that this is cheating the phone company by communicating without making a billed call, but: This gadget is designed to handle party lines (it isn't confused by funny ring patterns), so as much as the manufacturers might have liked to, it isn't allowed to connect to the phone line and answer the phone line. (Party lines must only be used by people, who can understand an emergency request to vacate the line by someone else sharing it. You mustn't connect modems and whatnot to them.) Those trying to figure out billing rules for unanswered calls might like to ensure that their logic extends to cover this situation. -Colin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #167 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05707; 13 Mar 90 5:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25494; 13 Mar 90 3:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27432; 13 Mar 90 2:32 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 1:50:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #168 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130150.ab21893@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:50:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines [Bob Goudreau] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jim Shankland] Re: Operator Knows What? [John Cook] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amanda Walker] Sorry, Wrong Number [Matt Simpson] Phone Harassment [Murray S. Kucherawy] New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Insight Magazine via J. Lockhart] Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill [Matt Simpson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 14:01:58 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <4845@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > It occurs to me, having driven in a bit of rural New York state, that > towns as defined there go way out into the countryside. What is it > like in Massachusetts? Remember that if you go out on a rural route > (U.S. Postal Service) from a town "proper", you may cross into a > different telephone exchange from that serving the town "proper". > When you go northwest along rural routes from Oxford or Nottingham > (both in Pa.), the next exchange is also in the next area code; these > towns proper are served by 215-932 Oxford, and if you go northwest > from them, you cross into 717-529 Kirkwood. That kind of effect is seen quite often in states like NC, where the vast majority of the land area in the state is not part of any municipality. Cities and towns expand by annexing unincorporated areas, so municipal boundaries often end up looking very random and ragged, and some cities have "holes" (unincorporated areas surrounded by city land) and "islands" (detached sections unconnected to the main city area). ZIP codes and telephone numbers for unincorporated areas are assigned usually to the nearest city, but sometimes such areas end up getting annexed by a different city. It is therefore not uncommon to find such anomalies as a residence that is in the city limits of A, has a postal address of city B, and is served by a telephone exchange from city C. In Massachusetts (and, as far as I know, most of New England), a completely different situation applies. There is no such thing as annexation or unincorporated areas; every piece of land is within the limits of one of the 352 cities or towns. Town boundaries are not as ragged; they mostly follow natural boundaries or straight lines, in the same manner as county, state, or national boundaries. Telephone exchange boundaries respect town lines most of the time, but there are a few exceptions like the New Braintree example cited above. Probably the most common kind of exception is the edge effect, where a business or residence in town A (but close to the boundary with town B) gets a telephone number in a B exchange. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ From: Jim Shankland Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 13 Mar 90 00:25:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Shankland Organization: The Eddie Group In article <5016@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Lesher writes: >According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone >administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is >ringing, busy or hung at the switch. That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich. Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM each. A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of its length. Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit, rather than money per minute. The phone company (== post office) started counting message units when the connection was established. Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. jas ------------------------------ From: John Cook Subject: Re: Operator Knows What? Date: 12 Mar 90 08:57:24 GMT Organization: The Goose Egg, Stockton, CA I have often had to explain to Pacific Bell operators what 950-xxxx or 10xxx numbers are used for. I never cease to be amased at how little these people who should be in the know, really do know. ------------------------------ From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:09:36 GMT In article <4962@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chris@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Chris Johnson) writes: > Who was the moron who kept calling the wrong number again? Sheeesh. I recently had a very annoying morning. Evidently, my phone number used to be connected to a local Mexican food wholesaler. I got a string of about 8 phone calls from someone wanting to order tortillas, who simply would not believe that she had the wrong number. "But it's right here in my catalog!" Sigh. On call #7, it was her supervisor, who wanted to talk to *my* supervisor (for playing games with this poor woman, I guess :-)). I rather testily suggested that she call C&P directory assistance and ask *them* what my phone number was. In a few minutes she called back (call #8) and apologized profusely. I asked her for the name of the restaurant so that I could make sure and avoid it... It's not so bad when I get strange messages on my machine (my # is also one digit away from the loan department at a local bank :-)), but this was truly annoying. Grumble. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 13:21:29 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number The discussions of persistent wrong-number callers brought to mind a couple of interesting anecdotes. Several years ago, when I lived in Dayton, I got frequent calls from a head-hunter in Kansas City who kept trying to talk me into jobs in all kinds of out-of-the-way places. This guy called me often enough to know that my answering machine's outgoing message was quite frequently weird, and that when I answered the phone in person, it frequently wasn't a standard "Hello". One day, he lost my number, and forgot what city I lived in .. so he called Cincinnati information and asked for my number. They obligingly gave him a number for Matt Simpson in Cincinnati, and he called, and asked for Matt. The person who answered said "I'm sorry, sir, he passed away 6 months ago" The jerk was sure it was me playing games with him, so he said "That's okay, he never was worth a s**t anyway" It turned out he was talking to the guy's son. After trying to extract his foot from his mouth, he remembered where I lived, and related the story to me. Going farther back, when my brother and I were in school, we used to use all kinds of weird names when we called home collect (Toll-saver foes, take note: This was not a scam to deliver free messages; our parents always accepted the calls). This was before 0-plus dialing, when the operators had to dial collect calls. One day when I tried to call home, the operator dialed the wrong number and announced that she had a collect call from the Wizard of Oz. The ensuing conversation was quite amusing: The elderly lady who answered was very confused ("Who did you say this is?" "This is the operator speaking, but the call is from the Wizard of Oz") I tried to explain that it was a wrong number, but when the operator read the number to the lady, she said that was her number. She finally agreed to pay for a call from the Wizard of Oz, although I don't think she realized that's what she was agreeing to. After the operator was satisfied that the lady was accepting the charges, and put the call through, I asked the lady again what her phone number was, and determined that the operator had mis-dialed. The operator, who was apparently still listening, broke in again, apologized profusely, and dialed the right number next time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: Phone Harassment I have a friend who is receiving sexually harassing phone calls. This would not be unusual, except that the phone company has been unable to trace the source of the calls. The problem has been going on for more than two years. The local police are baffled, and each time it happens, they aren't able to do anything more than add the incident to their huge file on the case. The content of these calls has increased in offensiveness to the point where the receiver has become rather seriously paranoid. As this person is a good friend of mine, and I am concerned for his/her well-being, I would like to see this stop as soon as possible. However, I am as baffled as the next person. When the phone company places a trace on the line, the calls stop for one week (the maximum duration of a line trace), then they start again. This implies that the person has ties within the phone company or within the police department. I am curious to know why the phone company is unable to trace the call. Also, if anyone out there is having a similar problem, or has dealt with something such as this in the past, I'd like to hear from you. Finally, if anyone has any advice at all, PLEASE post or mail it to me. We would appreciate hearing from you. =========================== Murray S. Kucherawy ============================ E-Mail: mskucherawy@{ watmath | dahlia | crocus | trillium }.waterloo.edu Faculty of Mathematics (Comp Sci), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Gamesmaster/Postmaster, UW Computer Science Club (mkuch@watcsc.waterloo.edu) System Manager, VAX/VMS Network, Board of Education, London, Ontario [Moderator's Note: It may be very well the case, as you suggest, that it is a employee of the telco who is tormenting your friend. A phreak working for the company would know all the ins-and-outs of the call tracing routine, and how to avoid getting caught. Is your friend tape recording the calls? I think under the circumstances, a judge would okay a silent and continuous tap on the line recording the conversations in the hopes the voice would be recognized. *Do tell the police and the court about this*. DO NOT notify telco of the tap and recording device. If the calls stop when the police are aware of the matter, then the contact is through the police. If the calls continue, then record one or more conversations, transcribe them, and *make a duplicate tape stored away safely*. Take the tape to the telco management, in a meeting with the head of security. Play the tape and hand out the transcriptions. Let them see if the voice or speech mannerisms can be matched to any existing employee, particularly an employee working in the frames or otherwise in a position of trust who would know what was going on from day to day. Let the police also have copies of the tapes if they were not the ones making them to begin with. A couple of questions: Are the calls always about the same time of day or day of the week? Has your friend changed (non-published) phone numbers only to have the new number likewise polluted? If the latter is true, this points more and more to some telco employee in a position of trust working in the CO who has access to the records, or the ability to go right on the frames to call out. Please let us know the results of this. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Lockard Subject: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST [Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest from the Net Exchange BBS. PT] Hearing-impaired and speech-impaired people now may be able to communicate more effectively by telephone with other people, both deaf and hearing, thanks to the introduction of the Phone Communicator, a system developed by IBM that uses a tone telephone and a personal computer. A prompter directs the sending party to type a message on the phone's dialing keypad. The deaf person receives the message on the computer's screen and may then type a responce or send a prepared message, which reaches the receiving party as a synthesized voice. The device also has an aswering machine and an automatic dialing function and is capable of saving and printing all phone communications. The Phone Communicator is a "very important development" in facilitating communication for the deaf, says Merv Garretson, interim executive director for the National Association of the Deaf. He says the device should help many people in the workplace. From Insight, March 12, 1989. ===== This caught me by suprise. It seems that very few words, English or otherwise, would have the same sequnce of numbers. (I'm assuming that they use 1 for Q, 0 for Z, * for a period, and # as a space.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 10:52:35 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill Someone asked about mileage surcharges on phone bills. My bill includes such a charge. I don't have a bill lying around, so I don't remember the exact name, or the exact amount. However, it is substantial. The "basic" rate for local service is about 12.00/month. The distance surcharge is about 13.00. By the time the 1.00 for Touch-tone service, and the FCC line charge is added, we're up to about 32.00 for Plain Ole Telephone Service. No, this not a FX line, it has no neat features (unless you consider the fact that it quits working frequently, saving me from nuisance calls, a feature). Several months ago, there was a flyer included in my bill saying that if I wanted an explanation of any of the itemized charges, that I could send back this card with a number where I could be reached during the day. I sent it in, intending to ask about the distance charge, and also give them some rhetorical grief about the Touch-tone charges. A South Central Bell rep called twice, I was out both times, and left a message for me to return her call. The number she left was a 557-xxxx number, which is the format of all of SCB's business office, repair service, etc. numbers in this area. Unfortunately, I work in a GTE area, and it isn't possible to dial a 557 number from a GTE phone, so I never got my answers. Of course, I should be used to service like this, after fighting with SCB for several months just to get a single line installed in my house ... but that's another long story. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #168 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22485; 14 Mar 90 23:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00120; 14 Mar 90 21:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26739; 14 Mar 90 20:47 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #169 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142015.ab15687@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More Greed [Scott Fybush] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Jody Kravitz] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Ken Abrams] MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Gary Segal] One More Horror Story [Scott Fybush] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Brian J. Haughey] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Roy Smith] How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ? [Brad Templeton] Can This Be True? [Richard Pavelle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:43:11 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: More Greed Those of you who deal with a _real_ phone company can consider yourselves lucky. Here at Brandeis, there is no answer supervision. B'deis Telecommunications will tell you that they charge after six rings because (of course) "it uses our facilities." What B'deis Telecommunications doesn't tell you is that if the called party answers on the first ring, you can talk for 36 seconds (6 sec. ring cycle x 6) and not get billed. :-) On the flip side, I don't know how NET deals with it but calls to the Boston choke line 617-931-xxxx don't get billed by Brandeis if they aren't completed ... or at least if you hang up within 42 seconds of connecting. BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy? Last week, I tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry, the number you have dialed is busy now." message. Would my odds of getting through have been better if I had routed the call through conference calling in the 617-736 exchange? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 19:49:43 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in the white house. The number was a 900 number. I had never heard of a 900 number before. I was curious then (and am now) if this was done for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id. Anyone care to comment ? Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: 12 Mar 90 16:28:14 CST (Mon) From: Ken Abrams In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I doubt that this lash-up is illegal anywhere in the U.S. It's probably not worth the trouble to really find out. If you think about it for a few minutes, there are a couple of other (better) ways to accomplish the same thing. Redialers or call diverters are available on the open market that will do what you want without the added cost of the modems. If the intermediate office in your example has call forwarding available, it will also accomplish the same thing using only one line instead of two. The drawback of the above two options is that you are locked into a single terminating number to call. Guess your modem option would allow you some flexibility. The cost of two lines and two modems seems a pretty high price to pay to avoid paying the short-haul toll charges. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) Date: 12 Mar 90 21:01:13 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America. Here are the details: Plan Name: Preimer (I think) Plan Period: 7pm-8am weekdays, 12am Sat-5pm Sun Rates: Minumum $8.00 / month for first 60 minutes. 10.833 cents per minute for each additional minute. Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states. When I first joined this plan, the additional minute rate was 11.33 cents. I noticed sometime ago that the rate dropped without even a marketing brouchure to annoucne it! I find this plan meets my needs very well, as most of my LD calls are to one of the coasts, so I really save over distance sensitive rates. The negative with this plan is that it only works from my phone, not on calls dialed with the MCI card (i.e. no "Around Town" feature for Preimer). Any calls I make on my card are subject to the standard MCI rates and rate periods. Around Town does apply for those rates. "If you've done six impossible things this morning, | Gary Segal, Motorola CID why not finish it up with breakfast at MillieWays, | 1501 W. Shure Drive the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!" | Arlington Heights, IL | ...!uunet!motcid!segal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 03:39:32 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: One More Horror Story Just when I thought Brandeis Telecommunications had gotten as bad as it could get, comes this month's phone bill. Checking the calls carefully, I found _four_ calls that my roommate made. Now, Brandeis uses six-digit accounting codes, and at least in theory, calls made with one's access code will appear on one's own bill no matter what phone the call was made from -- very much like a phone credit card, though our numbers bear no relation to any real phone number. Well, all four calls were made with my roommate's access code, _not_ mine. So somewhere in the billing computer, it is looking at what extension the call was placed from instead of the access code used [this problem has never happened in reverse; since the phone line is registered in my name, meaning collect calls and the like show up on my bill, not his]. And it's not like the technical problems with the system are the worst part. When I went in to complain, the lady there told me that I should first attempt to collect the $10.59 _directly_from_my_roommate_! Imagine if AT&T were to suggest that to its customers! Needless to say, I told her that I had already wasted more than enough of my time, and that Brandeis Telecommunications could figure out its own billing, and that maybe I'd just use an AT&T card from here on. This is not at all an isolated problem; people here have had nine-hour calls to Brazil and other oddities on their phone bills for months now, and there's nothing we students can really do. Of course, New England Telephone isn't allowed to connect a direct line to my room ... and I'm willing at this point to pay $15 a month just so I can get 10XXX dialing, answer supervision, reasonable billing, and twenty-four-hour-a-day operator service. Any other ideas? (And no, I can't afford a cellular phone :-) Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ From: b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 12 Mar 90 16:32:49 GMT Organization: University College Dublin In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: >>Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >>when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >>you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). > This feature should be illegal. Two quibbles : Why should it be illegal? I think it's perfectly valid to see if you have messages. Why be charged for discovering you have no messages - when you *do* have them and want to access them, *then* the telco makes its money. You could extend the same logic to the practice described by some guys on this list who use exchange callback to allow internal calls. I guess you'd disapprove of that, too. But your other point strikes me as intriguing - you want external callers to be able to hang up if they figure there's a machine on the line? Isn't that the same idea, that the caller gets information from the number of rings to answering ? Why allow one and not the other? Regards, bjh ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 13 Mar 90 15:45:20 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be > charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the > knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the > phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free > information. > You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work > yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. > As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. > After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a > charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't > answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number > and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! > Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the > facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call > attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would > sure put war dialers out of business! > No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my > messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages. How about the following scenario. You decide to go see a friend who lives some distance away. You get in your car, drive to a toll road, get on, and pay when you get off. You get to your friend's house, ring the bell, and there is no answer. You get back in your car, drive back over the toll road, and ask for the tolls back, since your friend wasn't home, and you did not get to talk to him. The toll collector looks at you, and says: "Are you kidding? You used my road!." Then you go to the gas station, and ask for a fillup, with the same rationale. The answer is probably not fit for usenet. Etc. etc. While I am certainly not advocating being charged for call attempts, there definitely is a good rationale for them. Actually, I believe that in Denmark there is such a charge. Some things are free, which could reasonably have charges. When buying something in a store, they will usually let you return it for any reason. Some businesses will charge a restocking fee. Also remember that one COCOT operator recently got caught placing calls first over AT&T to see if the card number was good, hanging up, and then placing the call over their own lines. The court deemed this illegal. There was also some serious discussion in CCITT whether there should be charges for call attempts in ISDN, which the US strongly opposed. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 16:47:42 GMT In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no > itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that > you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I > never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. And how is that any different from the typical electric, water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could I possibly have used that much?" Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: Brad Templeton Subject: How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ? Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:20:11 EST Keeping track of the numbers of the fax machines that call you is silly, I think. What would make a lot of sense would be extensible phone numbers. After you key in a phone number, the system should let you keep dialing, terminating with a '#' or somesuch as needed. Then the extra digits should be sent to the recipient or PBX or whatever. Those digits might be an extension in the case of a PBX (no need for centrex) or a code to identify who you're calling (fax machine, modem, particular person.) This would also replace the system whereby they give you several numbers that ring differently. Instead you dial suffix digits. Ideally, the telco could assign some codes (say all 3 digit codes starting with 9) for official purposes. These codes would have standard meanings that everybody would obey -- fax machine, e-mail hookup, switchboard, voice-mail message center etc.) Thus all fax machines would use suffix 999, and fax machines would know to add this suffix. Nice trick is that it doesn't hurt to add the suffix when calling a regular number, it's just ignored. ------------------------------ From: Richard Pavelle Subject: Can This Be True? Date: 14 Mar 90 00:39:29 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? P.S. I took away his paper clips and scolded him!!!!!!!!!! Richard Pavelle UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp ARPANET: rp@XN.LL.MIT.EDU [Moderator's Note: Describe the payphone. Is this the older type where you put the money in and then get a dial tone, typically without an armored handset cable? On those older-style payphones, yes, you could use a safety-pin or similar to momentarily connect the tip to ground (same as what happened when the coin hit a little 'seesaw' on the inside of the box which briefly touched two wires together). When I was ten years old, sometime around 1950, we always made free payphone calls. The handset cords were made of straight (not curled) cloth, the phone had three slots on the top for 5/10/25 cent coins, and the coin return did not have a trap door as now. We were quite proficient at getting a stiff wire up that return slot and tripping the collection table in our favor before the operator could get to it and trip it the other way, collecting the coins. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #169 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24953; 15 Mar 90 0:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14643; 14 Mar 90 22:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00120; 14 Mar 90 21:53 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #170 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142050.ab30741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:33 CST Volume 10 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Chris Johnson] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John Higdon] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John R. Levine] Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Rich Zellich] Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [John Higdon] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Tom Hofmann] Re: London 071, 081 Split [Joel B. Levin] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Steven King] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [David Barts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 14 Mar 90 22:47:51 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of > >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Well, what's really stinky about the whole thing is that most phone companies probably bill that charge like US West (nee Northwestern Bell) does: The line on the bill says it is an FCC charge, as if the FCC were getting the money. If you ask for details, the detailed bill says it is an FCC mandated charge. That the FCC specifically set the amount (which as you have noticed I'm sure, has gone up every year since it started -- originally it was "way cheap" at $1 a line or less, and is now pushing past $4 a line here) may be strictly accurate, but it is deceptive "advertising" nonetheless. Most consumers, I'll bet, blame the government/FCC for the charge when they think about it at all. In reality, though, not only does the money go to phone company, but it would be more descriptive to say they are limited to charging only that amount and no more by the FCC. If given a free hand, I'm sure that immediately after divestiture local phone service prices would have gone through the roof in a ballistic sort of way, instead of just growing exponentially at about 7-10% a year. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. VOX: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 13 Mar 90 10:14:34 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Robert E Stampfli writes: > OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for > local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be > charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that > this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for > something I cannot use. I'm surprised that no one has thought to mention the relavent point concerning the access charge. In the spirit of "universal service", this is a universal charge. It is not a usage charge; you don't escape it just because you don't use long distance. It's design purpose was to protect telcos' revenue, not to pay for long distance connections. There is no way to get out of it, so you might as well stop spinning your wheels. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 13 Mar 90 20:25:11 EST (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local > > telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice. >... it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls >only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee. This is a common misconception. The access charge is for access to the network, not just to LD companies. It was really a way to compensate the telcos for the revenue they lost from traditionally padded long distance rates by raising all of the local rates, without having have tarriff hearings before every state PUC in the country. It would be a lot more honest if the judge set an expiration date for the access charge of, say, January 1991, and all of the telcos adjusted their rates accordingly. I realize that the highly politicized PUCs in many states would make it extremely difficult for the telcos to make up the difference in any reasonable way. Ah, well. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:17:49 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil Try this lady; when I first ran across her 5-6 years or so ago, she was just starting to work on getting Brazilian universities connected with a network. She ought to either have the knowledge you need, or be able to point you at someone else who does. Cheers, Rich Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 12:40 C From: LIANE%UFRGS.ANSP.BR@UICVM.UIC.EDU To: ifip-gtwy-request@TIS.LLNL.GOV Subject: request to be added to IFIP-GTWY list Please add my name to the list IFIP-GTWY Liane Tarouco University Federal of Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre - RS - BRAZIL [Alternate address from a message 26 Oct 89: From: LIANE%SBU.UFRGS.ANRS.BR@UICVM.UIC.EDU] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: 13 Mar 90 10:04:01 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Steve Elias writes: > I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume > levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. The differences are minor, but usually if there is a difference, it's in favor of AT&T. AT&T ought to know how to make their own technology work! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tom Hofmann Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Reply-To: Tom Hofmann Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 18:50:38 GMT In article <4989@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: |>In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was |>to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. |In Europe, this is still often the case. For example, if you want to |call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number |is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626. There is no waiting for more digits in the above case: no other number starts with 89-0. Whenever extensions can be dialled directly, -0 (resp. -1) is the number of the local operator while all other extensions have a fixed length number (e.g. 5 digits for Hannover trade fairs) starting with digits 2--9 ("-NXX..." in US-like notation). Waiting for more digits is not necessary in Germany. In Austria, however, you sometimes get the local operator by simply dialling no extension. | A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via |Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of |accounting for everything make it impractical. Is a call from Florida to Hawaii routed via Mexico? | Compare this to the European mess |where the international code for each country is different, As in America! There are only two countries with the same area code: USA and Canada (forget the Caribbean--that is like Liechtenstein, San Marino etc. which have no country code either). |countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland, How about special case dialing from North America to Mexico ("area code" 905 instead of +52 5)? |and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random |places. Usually, when running out of numbers, they add only one new digit at a time. Still easier to remember then a new 3-digit area code. |I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have |moved to fixed length numbers, I cannot remember that France ever had variable length numbers. |It'll be interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme |and, if so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and |Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have |to change. Rather the opposite. France and Belgium are the only countries in the European Community (or even all of Europe?) with fixed length numbers. (I am not sure --- has Belgium such a fixed number length?) Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:03:15 EST >Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000 >From: Kevin Hopkins >In v10i114 John Pettitt reported: >-> The new London area codes that come into full use on May 1st >-> work now! >-> Calling 081 941 2564 (my office) works just fine. If I dial 071 941 >-> 2564 I get "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcment >-> three". >I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and >it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if >you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying: >"Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with >081. British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are >obviously reversed for the other new area code. I was sitting at home reading this last night, and I thought it might be amusing to get a British Telecom recording. If worse came to worst I might be charged a buck or two for reaching a recording, but it would be worth it for a few minutes' entertainment. (If I actually rang a number by accident it would be Mr. Pettitt's office number, which should cause no one any great inconvenience at 2:45 am.) I thought I would try all three carriers available to me (that I know of)*. I started with my default, Sprint, using the invalid 071 "city code" (as they are termed by American telcos). I received a recording (American accent) from Sprint ("58-93"), who could not complete my international call as dialled. I thought, "Aha, Sprint does not know about these new city codes." However, when I tried MCI, the recording informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code ("2EN"). Oops, I had been dialling 011-44-071- when I should have been dialling 011-44-71- (and I should have known better). I went back to Sprint and tried the number correctly. This time I was informed "60-93 You have entered an invalid country or city code." MCI informed me "Your international call cannot be completed as dialled ... 2EN." The first time I tried AT&T (I tried each carrier at least twice) I got the message, following three tones, that my international call could not be completed as dialled and suggesting that if I continued to have trouble I should contact the AT&T operator. I had not yet heard a British accent. Now it gets strange. When I repeated the above test, with 10288- 011-44-71-etc., I got a something new. Three loud and harmonic laden tones followed by this message: "Due to the earthquake in the area you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call later." These tones and words were repeat once. After a pause three similar but not identical tones at a more normal volume were followed by "Your call cannot be completed at this time to the country you are calling. Please try your call again later." spoken very slowly and distinctly. I hung up after hearing this message the second time. I got the same sequence of recordings the next three times I dialled, and one more time fifteen minutes later**. Needless to say, CBS did not interrupt with a bulletin and the 11:00 news did not report a recent earthquake anywhere. I repeated all the above numbers using the soon-to-be-valid city code of 081 (without "0"). The results were the same as for 071, except that I did not get the earthquake message from AT&T. Finally, just for the heck of it, I dialled via Sprint using 011-44-1- and shortly heard a ringing tone (I disconnected immediately). >BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and >especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind >the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months ago >when I last tried. I guess these three international carriers are not in such a hurry as the various PBXs, or BT has not got around to telling them. /JBL *For completists I should state that I placed all these calls from New Hampshire in 603-880. **I tried again two hours later (midnight local time) and at 7:30 this morning. Still an earthquake somewhere, apparently. Now I'm in Cambridge I'll try again when I get to a pay phone (my PBX here won't accept 10288 unfortunately, and the default carrier turns out not to be AT&T). levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's ...!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor." ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 14 Mar 90 16:58:39 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <5083@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: >[explanation that Atlanta's lack of dataports is due to age of the airport] >[...] are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an >entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be >worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time. It wouldn't be necessary to retrofit an entire airport to pull this off. The Mallworld ... er, Woodfield Hyatt in Schaumburg IL has some souped-up pay phones near its function rooms. These computerized wonders include, you guessed it, RJ-11 connectors! It shouldn't be a difficult matter to install a few of these anywhere that has existing pay phones. If all you do in life are important things, then | Steve King (708) 991-8056 you'll never have any fun -- unless having fun | ...uunet!motcid!king is an important thing to you. | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 08:23:24 pst From: David Barts Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta > Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed > before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have > many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary > in the Nineties. Well, Sea-Tac was completed sometime in the mid *sixties*, and somehow they did manage to install laptop facilities. My guess is that if Atlanta got enough complaints from laptop users, they'd find a way to install the facilities. David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #170 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27670; 15 Mar 90 1:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09385; 15 Mar 90 0:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14643; 14 Mar 90 22:57 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #171 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142154.ab21212@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Notes on the German Telephone System [Henning Schulzrinne] AT&T Call Manager Program [Ravinder Bhumbla] Enhanced 911 [David Barts] Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold [Charles Buckley] Happy NYTEL [John Stanley] Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Steve Elias] 800 Costs [Hank Nussbacher] Request For Telco News Material [Scott Fybush] I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :) [Bill Berbenich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:16 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Notes on the German Telephone System Since there has been a recent discussion on call supervision in Germany, I thought I'd add the experiences of a native. I was always under the impression that calls were charged starting from the time the other party answered - as correctly pointed out, the clock tick method and non-itemized billing would make it close to impossible to really check calls. However, I shared a phone once with a housemate and we tabulated "talk" time with a specially designed kitchen timer. Usually, we were within a unit or two of the phone bill, so that it seems unlikely that call attempts were charged for. Also, coin phones and the pay-after-you-talk phones in the post offices never charged for call attempts. [Aside: I often heard that the Bundespost, the German PTT, justified its non-itemized billing system with privacy reasons. If you had the data on a computer, the reasoning went, any [law enforcement agency | hacker | your friendly, but nosy neighborhood employee of the Bundespost ...] could potentially put together some interesting information on lifestyles for a large number of subscribers, even without 900 numbers. In reality, electronic offices are only now replacing step-by-step switches, but there seems to be no general clamoring for itemized billing. I used to be impressed when they said that they would take a photographic image of the matrix of mechanical counters in the central office and automatically read the numbers into the billing computer.] The German pay phone system deserves a special paragraph. It seems to me one of the few items in the German phone system that could stand being emulated around here. First, German currency makes calling from a coin phone somewhat less of a pain. Having DM 5 coins in common circulation (app. $3.10) avoids the agony I so vividly remember when I tried to call home after arriving at JFK. "Deposit seven dollars and thirty-five cents, please..." Ever tried to convince a hamburger stand to part with thirty quarters? (Needless to say, foreign visitors don't carry calling cards. Many countries, including Germany, do not allow collect calls.) But even for your everyday coin calls, the German procedure seems far more elegant (and cheaper). If you want to make a call, you deposit the anticipated amount into the machine. The current balance is then displayed, more or less slowly decrementing, on a digital readout. (In older pay phones, the coins are shown sliding down a chute, dropping into the coinbox rather audibly.) If you see your balance approaching zero, you either deposit more coins or hurry up your conversation. Extra coins are refunded (but no change); leftover credit can be applied to the next call. Also, a basic unit of 0.30 DM (20c) provides about 40 sec of cross-country off-peak talk time (roughly), that's often all it takes to announce "I'll be arriving on the train at 15.42". Not much of an incentive to use clever ringing patterns or "out-smart" automatic operators. Also, there is no 60c+ surcharge, no operator interference, no ringing back after call completion (but also no credit cards). Actually, calling from a pay phone (used to be?) slightly less expensive than using a regular home phone, since a unit (beyond the first) costs 0.23 DM from a regular phone, 0.20 DM from a payphone. As of last December, the rate structure worked as follows (shown in time per unit, where unit = 0.23 DM). M-F, 8am-6pm otherwise local calls 8 min 12 min ("local" = same area code) < 50 km 60 sec 2 min 50..100 km 20 sec 38 4/7 sec > 100 km 15 sec 38 4/7 sec Simple (and more expensive ...) A word on area codes: Since large cities have short (2/3 digit) area codes, but six-digit numbers, and small cities have long (4 digit) area codes, but shorter numbers, must phone numbers work out to be about 9 digits, not counting the initial zero indicating long distance. (No problems with NXX area codes here.) You can actually tell how a call is routed (if everything goes according to hierarchy) by the area code: All cities connecting through Cologne, for example, start with a two. Originally, as pointed out in another recent submission, this allowed call routing without storing (or waiting for) the whole number. Naturally, the area code has to be instantaneously decodable, as they say. If a city outgrows its numbering plan, it prepends a digit to all numbers. Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: +1 (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-1249 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: AT&T Call Manager Program Date: 14 Mar 90 06:04:08 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego AT&T seems to have a new program called Call Manager which helps roommates keep track of their calls. I saw their ad in our campus newspaper yesterday and called AT&T to find out about it today. The way it works is each roommate selects a 2-digit code between 00 and 99 (without informing AT&T). After that each time he makes a call, he dials 0 nnn-nnn-nnnn 15 mm, where nnn-nnn-nnnn is the number he is trying to dial and mm is his personal two digit code. The 15 is supposed to be dialled after you get a tone from AT&T. The operator assured me that dialling 15 would make sure that their computer did not wait for a calling card number (the procedure did look suspiciously like a calling card call to me). The calls will be listed separately in the monthly bill. This service is supposed to cost NOTHING, and, if I can manage to get my roommates to dial those additional 4 digits this is sure going to save me a lot of trouble with our monthly bill! Disclaimer: This is what I think the AT&T operator meant to say. To make, sure call AT&T at 1-800-22-0300 and ask about the Call Manager program. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 07:44:39 pst From: David Barts Subject: Enhanced 911 Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911. I don't have the complete text of the article with me, but it was quite long and rambled a bit so I'll summarize: Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment, which normally wouldn't be a problem because that part of King County has E911 service. But the apartment complex was served by a PBX owned by a company several miles away. The address that came up on the E911 display was that of the PBX company, not the location of the emergency. Fortunately, the 911 dispatcher figured out that the address on the E911 display was not correct, looked up the company's business number, and found the correct address of the apartment. (This time. I could easily imagine a tired or overworked operator sending an ambulance to the address of the PBX owner.) Even then, the complex involved had several buildings and there was some question as to which one had the emergency. Naturally, if the tenants had been served directly by Pacific Northwest Bell instead of the PBX, E911 would have been able to supply the correct address down to the apartment number. The article mentioned that apartment PBX's were becoming increasingly common and this problem would also occur at many businesses (although I'd assume there would be less chance of a frightened, confused child making a 911 call from an office). From what I remember of previous discussions in this group, I get the impression that fixing E911 to handle this problem would be difficult. (Also mentioned was that not all of King County has E911 service yet.) David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:30:01 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior merchandise, but that seems to be the case. This refers to a phone I recently bought. It carries the modernized bell-in-a-circle logo at the top, and the words "BELL(tm) Phones" in big letters, followed by (in smaller letters) "by Northwestern Bell Phones". The model number is Techline 2702S, and a quick check of the back indicates the set was made in Korea. The problem is something very simple, that even the old faithful 500 or 2500 sets didn't have: if you set the receiver down on a flat hard surface (like a desktop) with the mouthpiece and earpiece down, you generate a feedback squeal, which is disturbing to the party on the other end, to say the least. I have seen this happen on two sets of the same model, so I know it's a design defect, and not a manufacturing one. This was confirmed by the manufacturing rep - see below. Having noticed the problem, I tried several different handsets of the same style made by other companies (made in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. - sigh), and none of them had this problem. Northwestern Bell Phones provides an 800 number for service problems, which I called using their product. I demonstrated the problem in real-time, and the rep replied: "Oh yes, that's a problem with all the Techline phones [there are 4 models], but you know, you're going to get that with any phone made." I told her it was not true, and promptly switched to a handset made by another company and demonstrated my point. I told her I would not be put off so easily. I also allowed as noise cancelling was not a new innovation, and was even cheap to implement, and there was no excuse for not doing so. At this point, she asked me to hold while she consulted a technician. I waited, and she came back and said "Well, I just talked to our technician, and he said the same thing I said. You're welcome to send it in for service, but we're not going to find anything wrong with it." I allowed as this was unacceptable, and stated I wanted my money back. At this point she stated flat out "We do not give refunds.", and she repeated this several times as I tried to reason with her. I finally gave up. The case is so clearcut, and the matter so badly handled, that I feel I must resort to a posting here. If anyone from Northwestern Bell reads this list, I would suggest you do something about your marketing organization - poor-quality products and insolent, intimidating, lying service reps won't get you very far. The Bell name took years to develop a good reputation, and it seems that this capital is being squandered by those who now use it. Maybe some of the other firms earning money off the Bell logo might want to have a word with Northwestern Bell Phones as well, in their own interest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 11:25:47 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Happy NYTEL "O what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to telecommunicate..." A recent series of messages discussed how to 'unlist' oneself by changing the listing name. I had had a bad experience with a (pre-divested) Michigan Bell, which did not allow me to do this. I tried it with NYTEL, and LO!, 'certainly sir, what name do you want?' There was an admitted $9.90 service order charge, which was minor, so I said 'change it.' This month, I see the order charge, plus a $1.81 per month charge. I am waiting for a supervisor to call me back and I will find out what this is. I am waiting because Happy NYTEL is trying to time my untimed service. They claim that untimed service pays one charge per call, no matter how long the call is. On my last bill, they charged me >$8 for 4 (very long) calls, all local service area, all supposedly untimed. Previous bill: $12 for 15 calls. And finally, who says COCOT and AOS weasles don't have a sense of humor? Last bill, credit card call through a COCOT on the Ohio Turnpike to Michigan, $1.56 for one minute. AT&T - similar distance, $.96. What's the humor? The AOS service is named "Integretel". Like, 'integrity', only almost and not quite. /*------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ [Author's note: is there really a 'receipt' mechanism for submitted items? I have not received any for any of several submissions. Is mine one of the bouncers?] [Moderator's Note: Yes there is. It was not operating for about a month due to a problem in the software, but it has been running again for a few weeks. We use mmdf here, and a file called '.maildelivery' tells how to sort, deliver and respond to incoming mail. The '.maildelivery' file exempts mailer-daemons and other (themselves) automated replies, to prevent an endless loop. But there is such a variety of names these things use it is impossible to prevent them all without accidentally excluding some legitimate names as well (without having the .maildelivery file go on for hundreds of lines.) The use of a 'reply-to' line in your message almost always guarentees a receipt. The autoreply program substitutes the 'reply-to' information in place of the 'From' information whenever possible. If it can't, then it replies to 'From'; but these frequently bounce. I have about a 95 percent success rate with autoreply. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 07:43:24 -0500 From: Steve Elias Subject: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature I saw a TV ad in NJ this weekend for a "repeat dial" service available from the local telco. Does anyone know anything about this service??? eli@spdcc.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:32:15 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: 800 Costs Does anyone know what the costs are to set up an "800" number? Installation, monthly minimum, etc. Does it matter where the base is? I heard that AT&T now has a new service called "International 800" and so far there are about 15 companies that have applied and work (places like some international money market fund, big name travel agents, etc.). Anyone have list? Thanks, Hank ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:09:36 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Request For Telco News Material When I'm not fighting to get AT&T operators, I'm the assistant news director of WBRS-FM, the radio station on the Brandeis campus. I'm trying to put together a story on how Brandeis Telecommunications is making lots of money by using AOSs and the like. So I come to all of you for help. Is there anyone out there who'd be willing to give me some usable quotes about scumbag AOSs, equal access, and Telesphere's rates? You can e-mail me at kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu, or voice at (617) 736-6327 or 6372. Thanks for any help any of you might be able to provide. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:23:26 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :) 1-800-FON-WD40 worked when I called. And can you believe it... I WON!!! :-) Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Question: How long did you have to study for the test? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #171 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29784; 15 Mar 90 3:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00160; 15 Mar 90 1:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09385; 15 Mar 90 0:01 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #172 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142300.ab18857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:21 CST Volume 10 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Michael I. Bushnell] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Danial Hamilton] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Roger Haaheim] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Tom Lowe] Re: Wrong Number For Model [Michael L. Starr] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Torsten Lif] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Rich Zellich] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne] Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Robert Gutierrez] Re: *TONE-BLOCK* [Don H. Kemp] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael I. Bushnell" Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 17:15:10 GMT I have a particularly sad example of the wrong number problem. My parents have been at the same number for about 30 years. Last Christmas, we got a call from an old woman looking for Mary. We have no Mary. After the fourth call or so, the poor caller was nearly in tears. It seems this friend of hers had moved, left our number (by mistake, obviously) and now she could find no way to get ahold of her. It was all quite tragic. Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee! ------------------------------ From: Danial Hamilton Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 14 Mar 90 17:05:29 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL My standard procedure for handling wrong numbers has always been to ask the caller what number they dialed. If the number they give me is different than mine, then I tell them that they must have misdialed, and to try their call again. If they dialed my number correctly, then I tell them that they dialed correctly, but the number they have is incorrect. Case one avoids revealing my number, and case two (hopefully) avoids repeated call backs. ------------------------------ From: Roger Haaheim Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 13 Mar 90 13:54:39 GMT Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA Just gently remind him that HE's the one that keeps calling the wrong number. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 90 08:55:48 EST (Tue) From: Tom Lowe Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) writes: > So, in order to make sure that the error > wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person > if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no". OK, so I called that > number again, and of course the same person answered. > Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their > phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already > have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't > reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make? In many business environments, people don't necessarily know exactly what number they are answering. It may be a pots line that is used exclusively for a toll-free number (although no restrictions on calling the pots number), or part of a hunt group or any one of other strange arrangements. At one of my former jobs, my phone could potentially be reached by dialing 3 or 4 different numbers, and I had no idea which number had actually been dialed. Then again, maybe they were just lying to you. Tom Lowe AT&T tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: "Michael L. Starr" Subject: Re: Wrong Number For Model Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:05:20 GMT In article <5002@accuvax.nwu.edu> brock@brock.cs.unc.edu (J. Dean Brock) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 161, Message 5 of 10 >The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page >article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is >receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with >Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student >who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC." This reminds me of an article I read several years ago in the [Washington Post.] The electric company in Virginia changed their name from VEPCO to Virginia Power (apparently to avoid the confusion with another company in the area, PEPCO). It seems that whenever calls to directory assistance came in requesting the number of Virginia Power, the operators gave the number of an elderly woman named Virginia Power. After a period of a constant flood of calls to this poor woman, the operators were instructed to ask callers whether they wanted the power company or the individual. __/\__ ******************** __/\__ | starr@hriso.ATT.COM \ / * Michael L. Starr * \ / | att!hriso!starr |/\| ******************** |/\| | attmail!starr ------------------------------ From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 13 Mar 90 11:24:44 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Lif Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article <5041@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Joel M. Snyder" writes: >In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people >for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken >to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone. >In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you >want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges. In the >voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the >data world. I may not be the only person to point this out, but nevertheless here goes: In Denmark you are indeed charged for "picking up the phone". The counter (on which your charges are based) first "clicks" when you lift the receiver (or more strictly: when you get the dialling tone). Danish pay-phones have no return slot. Whatever money you put in stays there. The argument for all this is that the costly part for the CO is in the *setting up* of the call; *not* in maintaining it. Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains information to the caller. Needless to say, repeating auto-diallers are not a big sell on the Danish market :-) Torsten Lif ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 8:14:49 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Remember also though, that the "toll saver" feature is there for another purpose as well. Allowing more rings on the first pickup gives you, the owner, time to get to the phone to pick it up before the machine grabs the incoming call. After the machine gets the first one, however, it makes the assumption that you aren't home and answers more quickly on subsequent calls so the caller doesn't have to wait listening to rings any longer than necessary - theoretically keeping some people from hanging up too soon. The above, of course, so you can leave the machine on all the time and not have to worry about remembering to turn it on every time you leave. ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 14 Mar 90 11:21:06 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <5047@accuvax.nwu.edu> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: }To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance, }A to C via call forwarding in B is free. }Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money. >[Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except* >for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying >whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the >corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the >basic monthly charge? Have you any idea who uses it, and how >frequently? PT] I average 11 hours a week to deliver him his newsfeed. At $.10/minute that would work out to $320/month. It probably costs him on the order of $30/month for the line and call forwarding. I would imagine that there are a fair number of other users on it as well. In the near future BCTel is supposed to be looking at widening the free calling area. At that point in time this won't be too useful. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV Date: 14 Mar 90 07:36:37 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC...The Purveyors of TCP/IP Communcations. brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes in Volume 10, Issue 155, Message 8 of 14: > In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there > arrived a number of glossy inserts. One is quite interesting: What happened to Cox Cable??? > A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are > being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone > games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. > According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and > information from around the world, plus sports, weather, > entertainment, and lifestyle reports. It's used in over 2,500 schools > nationwide as a classroom teaching aid." (and on and on) I had heard X-Press was outta business ... ah well, it's nice to spread rumors for a service that I thought was awful. X-press is a service transmitted out of Boulder, Colo. which takes various newswire stories and uplinks them onto a VC-II data channel on one of the pay services. The data feed is then received by the cable company via an addressable VC-II (Videocipher-II) data receiver, then re-modulated (FSK'd) on a spare frequency on the cable system (~70-75 mhz, or 108-118 mhz) and transmitted downstream in the cable. > It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic > box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser > interface. My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably > picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band > transmissions on the cable..... Bingo ... though try 9600 baud. FSK no less (talk about bandwidth hog). > It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month. > However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional > $20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and > analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC > financial/get-rich-quick programs. When I was 'testing' the service at the cable company I worked for, this was actually part of the service, though it was a 'seperate' area you had to go to on the program (on your PC) to manually look them up. Now, they just added some fancy bells and whistles (ie: made a better program) and charged you (the sucker) for it. > Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to > leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in > electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). Yessiree. Buffer is only as big as your memory, and that was filled up in about 15 minutes or so. Oh, also, you can print out the articles you wanted to save, but no file saving was allowed (I got around that with a little nifty TSR called "LPTX" which redirected printer output to a file). > I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service > isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on > the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. Try the frequencies listed above. This service is a rip off because of one thing ... the 'stories' or 'articles' they used were the so-called _broadcast_ versions, or in other words, just summaries of the real articles you see on your local newspaper. Maybe about 1/4 - 1/3rd of the real newswire story. Might as well just get a subscription to my local kitty-litter liner. And with just 640k of buffer available, well, you may not get all the 'articles' you really want anyway. How long would 640k last for a Usenet feed?!? > As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload > already. You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that. One of the satellites is K-2 (Ku band). A 3 1/2 foot dish getting continuous Usenet articles ..... Usenet articles .... Usenet articles...... Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett Feild, California. ------------------------------ From: Don H Kemp Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK* Date: 13 Mar 90 23:23:27 GMT From article <4628@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon): > Tom Lowe writes: [Tale of woe about ill-educated service reps deleted] > [Moderator's Note: Smart consultants earn a good part of their living by > cutting a deal with their clients where they audit the phone bill for > a period of several months past. Then they take a percentage of whatever ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Sleezy Practice) > they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes > in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal. Legend has it that this kind of "consulting" was at one time very common in the trucking industry. The "consultant" would tell the client that they would cut the client's phone bill by a large percentage, by finding billing errors and "optimizing the network". They would take, as their fee, up to half of the savings, sometimes for as much as five year's worth. They would then take a quick look for errors, and if there wern't enough savings to provide a large enough fee, they'd start ripping out WATS and 800 lines. They would then block LD calls on local lines. Sure enough, the phone bills would drop dramatically. The "consultant" would get their fee, and go on his way. Of course, when the truckers customers couldn't reach the company, and the dispatchers couldn't get an outside line, and revenues started dropping. I agree that billing errors are rampant, especially where equipment was transferred from the Bell Operating Company to AT&T at divisiture. We have found cases where the client was being billed for equipment that had been removed (or ordered removed) even before '83. And we still see cases where the Telco is charging for CPE that AT&T is also charging for. Our policy, and that of most reputable consultants, is that any savings or refunds that we find are the client's. We feel that we can make a reasonable profit on our hourly fees alone. Our clients seem to agree, at least they keep calling back :-). 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 [Moderator's Note: Indeed, it was a much more common approach years ago then now; but even then, the ethical consultants signed a contract with the client saying they would divide the 'savings' in two parts: the telco billing errors in one group and the service configuration/ judgment calls in another. They agreed to discuss both categories with the client. Obviously, the billing errors were reported and corrected. Regards the other, the client agreed in the contract that if he chose to implement the recommendations of the consultant at any time in the near future -- say the next year -- he was liable for that portion of the fees the consultant would have earned had the changes been made at the time of the consultation. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #172 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02397; 15 Mar 90 3:55 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07161; 15 Mar 90 2:10 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00160; 15 Mar 90 1:05 CST Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 0:01:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #173 BCC: Message-ID: <9003150001.ab24942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Mar 90 00:00:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ECPA Clarification [Ed Ravin] Telecom Conference in Philly [Daniel Finnigan] Phone Statistics [Henning Schulzrinne] Sleazy Credit Card Ad [Amitabh Shah] Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source [John Courtney] Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable [Keith Henson] Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy [Herb Caen via J Palmer] Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [Glenn M. Cooley] Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [John Parsons] Use of New London City Codes From U.S. [Carl Moore] Area Codes List [Carl Moore] Global Ventures by US Sprint [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Ravin Subject: ECPA Clarification Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 18:27:50 GMT Some more clarifications on ECPA restrictions on receivers and receiving: Our good moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack also got a lot of pressure to make changes >in the scanners they sell. You and John are correct in a couple of points: >Old equipment on hand is not illegal. The manufacturing of new stuff is >controlled. You no longer see a channel 83 spot on new televisions, for >example. Older radios which can coincidentally tune cellular are okay, but >newer radios have to be blocked. I don't think strictly speaking you are >allowed to sell the older units, for the same reason Grove and Radio Shack >are no longer allowed to sell them if they receive cellular. PT] There is *NO* restrictions on manufacturing of new scanners, at least not legal ones. Radio Shack and Uniden/Bearcat block the cellular frequencies on their own volition, not under legal duress from the ECPA (though perhaps under other kinds of duress). Some manufacturers, like AOR, come out with new models that DON'T have the 800 Mhz frequencies blocked. Another confusion to the issue is that frequencies are not illegal to listen to, but "protected communications" are. So you could tune your scanner to 870.330 and listen to the noise level (that's not illegal) but when a cellular call comes in you tune away. To add even more confusion, some frequencies may be used by both "protected" and ordinary communications, which means the scanner owner has the burden of figuring out who he or she is listening to. While we're on the subject, ECPA prohibits places a cordless telephone BASE unit under "protected communications", but NOT the handset. Don't ask me why. This one will never stand up in the courts because owners of cordless phones don't have the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists the way the cellular telephone people do. Again, there is no legal restriction on manufacturing or selling equipment that is capable of receiving cellular (or for that matter, IMTS 150 Mhz car phone) calls. There is only a restriction on manufacturing or selling equipment that is PRIMARILY USEFUL for intercepting protected communications. This was a hard-fought for compromise in the law, perhaps the one piece of ground ceded to the radio hobbyists. Even a converter designed to down-convert the 800 Mhz band into a normal scanner seems to be legally sold (heck, they're advertised in Popular Communications, it MUST be legal :-), probably becaused it is also useful for tuning in trunked systems and the other non-protected communications that can be listened to in the 800 Mhz band. Ed Ravin | hombre!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. ------------------------------ From: Daniel Finnigan Subject: Telecom Conference in Philly Date: 13 Mar 90 21:54:08 GMT Reply-To: Daniel Finnigan Organization: University of Pennsylvania DON RITTER WILL BE GIVING A CLOSING ADDRESS AT CONFERENCE ON MARCH 23 AND 24 FULFILLING THE PROMISE FOR THE 1990's Telecommunications Technologies and Policies for Industry, Consumers and Education In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring together engineers and sociologists, industry representatives and regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and exonomists to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public interest. Special attention will be paid in the conference to the deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and Europe. Critical questions to be examined include: - Are American business opportunities being lost as the policy struggle continues? - How can information technologies enhance productivity in business, teaching and research? Organized faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg School of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include speakers such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ed David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President and former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Panels include: - New Technologies and Public Policy: American and European Perspectives - Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future - Consumers and the Intelligent Network - Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix? - Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers? For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for Communications and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania at (215) 898-9494. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 20:19 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Phone Statistics For a report I'm working on, it would be helpful to have the following traffic engineering data: 1) What is the average and peak rate of calls handled within the United States (or, if that's too difficult, by the major long distance carriers)? 2) What is the mean call duration? 3) Are there any estimates as to the fraction of bandwidth/calls/usage devoted to voice, data, fax, ...? Any references, suggestions, clues, hints or guesses are appreciated. Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: +1 (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-1249 ------------------------------ From: Amitabh Shah Subject: Sleazy Credit Card Ad Date: 14 Mar 90 02:21:49 GMT Reply-To: Amitabh Shah Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department In the continuing saga of late night sleazy ads, here's one I saw recently. This was from a bank called American National something. It showed a guy complaining about how other banks would not give him a credit card because he had a lack of credit history. Then this bank gave him one ("All you have to do is to open an account with them.", yeah!) without any hassle. At the end was a 900 number to call the bank for a credit application, only 10$ per call. Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Upson Hall -- Cornell University (607) 255-8597---------(OFFICE) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 257-7717-----------(HOME) ------------------------------ From: John Courtney Subject: Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source Date: 13 Mar 90 15:55:48 GMT Organization: Metromedia Paging Services I called about the WICOM unit. I already have a Plantronics set but I don't like the way the earpiece sits in my ear. At any rate, they informed me that Sharper Image stores carry the high priced model (of course) A quick call to Sharper Image confirmed this. The price is $ 199. Looks like a nice unit, plus you can have some tunes on all day. Later, =============================================================================== John Courtney INTERnet: courtney@metpage.mps.com Metromedia Paging Services 201-807-3366 UUCP: ...uunet!metpage!courtney Ridgefield Park NJ - USA +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." - Brooks =============================================================================== The above text might not even be my opinion, its certainly not my employers.. ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable Date: Tue, 13-Mar-90 08:26:12 PST The story ckp reported on is the *stupidest* example of blind government bureaucrats I have ever heard of. Of course they should encourage phone traffic, and the resultant spread of news/ideas to Cuba if they have any desire for the Castro regime to fall. STUPID! Keith Henson (someone should take this one to the President!) ------------------------------ From: Jim Palmer Subject: Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy Date: 14 Mar 90 03:38:06 GMT from _The San Francisco Chronicle_, Monday March 12, 1990, quoted from Herb Caen's column: "...Kind of scary: At around 8 a.m. on the day Pres. Bush spoke at the Commonwealth Club, Phyllis Sherman phoned the S.F. Hilton to find out the closest Muni stop [public transit], figuring it would be impossible to drive there. Although she gave neither her name nor phone number, she got a phone call at 9:30 a.m. from a Secret Service agent who addressed her by name and asked 'What was the nature of your call?' He accepted her explanation, adding, 'Sorry, but we're checking out something I can't discuss.' Now that's almost as intriguing as the eavesdropping. Pardon. Surveillance ..." [endquote] Boggles the mind. Any guesses as to how it was done? ANI to the ^Nth! But why was an hour and a half needed before followup? P.S. For the SecServ: I'm clean, just curious. Really, I am, check the files ;-) {hplabs,ptsfa,pacbell,ucbvax}!well!jpalmer Jim Palmer, not in JOCKEY shorts Admirers of laws or sausages are advised to avoid witnessing either's creation. ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance Date: 13 Mar 90 16:47:16 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. >They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business >office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us What has been happening is that TELCOs hire telemarketing firms to harass, I mean call, people at dinner time and ask if they want to switch. These firms get paid on commission and so MAGICALLY, the TELCOs were told of many people who wanted to switch but didn't. NETCO, my local TELCO, also does this (and who out there thinks they're squeaky clean?) and started charging me for added services (e.g. call waiting) which I never ordered. They insisted that I just must have said yes in such a call (or it just must have been my wife) because this service could not have been supplied otherwise. After further argument, they canceled the service and credited me the overcharges (do TELCOs hire people who see arguing as a fringe benefit or are they trained to never, never, never, give in before 20 minutes are up) still maintaining that this just could not happen and that mine was the only case they had ever encountered. Some two years later I read in TIME about this WIDESPREAD problem which was a COMMON occurrance for up to 50% of the orders relayed by the telemarketers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:13:18 mst From: John Parsons Subject: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old technology :) . They both have a distortion problem when speaking in a normal voice or louder. My guess is overmodulation. Is there a way to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow? Thanks, John Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:01:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Use of New London City Codes From U.S. This responds to an item posted Feb. 19 by John Pettitt which was in Telecom: You said that calling your office as 081 941 2564 (obviously from within U.K.) works fine and that calling it with 071 instead of 081 yielded "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcement three". Just now I tried 011-44-71-941-2564 and it got AT&T intercept, indicating that the new city code (I did not try 081 due to the ghastly hour for U.K., 5 hours ahead of Eastern Time, where I am) is not yet recognized at this end. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 16:18:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Codes List The area codes list I "inherited" had 170 for northwest Mexico and 190 for Mexico City. Aren't these referring to the former "fake" area codes 706, 903, and 905? (Yes, I know 903 will later appear in Texas by splitting what is now 214.) In my copy, I deleted 170 and 190 (see above), and also deleted reference to suburbs w/r to area code 202, which in my copy again refers only to Washington, DC. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:44:05 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Global Ventures by US Sprint Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu Pinched from the [New York Times] -- US Sprint Communications Co. announced four moves Wednesday to expand operations overseas, including a preliminary agreement to provide high-quality international telephone links to the Soviet Union. Sprint said it had signed an agreement to create a venture in Moscow with Central Telegraph, which provides long-distance telephone and telex services in the Soviet Union, and the Latvian Academy of Sciences. The new company, called Telenet U.S.S.R., will import and operate an advanced switching center that will use satellite communications to offer voice and high-speed data exchanges, said Susan W. Williams, Sprint's vice president for international services. Sprint will provide the switching center while Central Telegraph, a unit of the Soviet Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, will supply office space, pay employee salaries and make local telephone connections available, Ms. Williams said. Operations are scheduled to begin by the end of the year, Sprint said. Sprint also said that it had joined several Asian and European concerns in planning a $260 million fiber-optic cable project. Scheduled for completion in mid-1993, the system would link Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore and connect with trans-Pacific cables serving the United States and Canada. In addition, Sprint said it was forming a venture with Elektrisk Bureau AS, Norway's largest maker of electronic components, to sell data communications products in Scandinavia and that it had opened new switching centers in London and Amsterdam. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #173 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04763; 15 Mar 90 4:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27876; 15 Mar 90 3:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07161; 15 Mar 90 2:05 CST Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 1:05:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #174 BCC: Message-ID: <9003150105.ab19538@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Mar 90 01:05:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit [Don H. Kemp] Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill) [Fred R. Goldstein] TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List [Johnny Zweig] Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted [Steve Huff] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Matthias Urlichs] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Steve Forrette] Being Charged For No-Answers [Liudvikas Bukys] Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Todd Olson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:15:38 EST From: Don H Kemp AT&T's back in court again.... FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1990 BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today said it is suing National Telephone Services Inc. (NTS) and International Telecharge Inc. (ITI). The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, charges that NTS and ITI have switched public telephones from AT&T to NTS and ITI without the knowledge or consent of the owners of the premises where the phones are located. AT&T charged NTS and ITI with a number of deceptive practices including: deceiving business owners into believing that there is an association between NTS, ITI and the local telephone companies; claiming that AT&T is no longer providing long-distance service for a business owner's public phones; or indicating that NTS or ITI has been designated the new long-distance operator services company for public pay phones on the business owner's premises. NTS is headquartered in Rockville, Md. ITI is headquartered in Dallas. AT&T said the deceptive practices have resulted in considerable confusion and inconvenience for business owners with public phones and may have cost AT&T millions of dollars in lost revenue. "Business owners with public telephones deserve the right to choose their long-distance company without concern for deceptive and fraudulent business practices," said Merrill Tutton, vice president, AT&T Consumer Services. The lawsuit against NTS and ITI asks the court to order NTS and ITI to stop making false, misleading or deceptive representations, and to stop switching AT&T long-distance business customers to NTS or ITI without authorization by the customer. In addition, it asks the court to declare void any contracts between NTS or ITI and AT&T's business customers that were entered into through NTS' or ITI's deceptive actions. AT&T has asked to be awarded damages it has suffered as a consequence of NTS' and ITI's wrongful conduct. AT&T said it believes that thousands of business owners with public telephones who have been switched from AT&T had either never been contacted by NTS or ITI, had declined to switch when they were contacted, or didn't realize they were being asked to authorize the switch. Many business owners were initially unaware that they had been switched to another long-distance company. AT&T also said these practices have created confusion for people who make calls from public phones. In a related action on Jan. 10, 1990, AT&T sued MCI and its telemarketing agent, Pioneer Teletechnologies, for deceptive telemarketing practices that misled consumers and for widespread switching of long-distance customers without their consent. The case is still in the early stages of litigation. Business owners who chose AT&T long-distance for the public telephones on their properties and think their service may have been switched without their consent can contact their local AT&T account executive or call 1-800-KEEP ATT (1-800-533-7288). # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill) Date: 14 Mar 90 17:19:57 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, res@cblpe.att.com (Robert E Stampfli) writes... > > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of > >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... > >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. Well, to be sure, the explanation of the charge above is somewhat in error, but it's a common misunderstanding brought about by the use of the slang term "access charge" to refer to what's formally known as the "customer access line charge" (CALC). Under the 1930-ish court ruling Smith v. Illinois, local telephone service is jurisdictionally both interstate and intrastate. Since the same local wires are used for both, the cost must be charged to both. From then until 1984, a system called Separations & Settlements was in place. This apportioned the cost of local telco plant (the non-traffic-sensitive stuff, or NTS) according to relative interstate and intrastate use. The interstate was marked up by a "Subscriber Plant Factor" (SPF) to increase the interstate share; this constituted the subsidy from AT&T Long Lines to the local telcos! The interstate money all came from usage (traffic sensitive) charges, even though it paid for NTS. Without this in place, long distance would have been cheaper, local costlier. In 1984, the rules changed. SPFs remained in place, but instead of charging 100% of the interstate NTS costs to toll/WATS usage, the FCC decided that non-traffic-sensitive costs should have non-traffic- sensitive charges. (Sort of makes sense, doesn't it?) So that's the CALC, or "access charge". It's the FCC's way of levying a monthly charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs, the same way your state has the telco levy a monthly charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs. (Imagine if the states gave away lines for FREE but charge more for intrastate calls ... that's the equivalent of the old FCC system. Come to think of it, that's almost California!) If your line had NO interstate "contamination", then 100% of its cost would be borne at the state level. You wouldn't pay CALC, but you'd have a MUCH higher local charge to make up for the money that your local telco isn't getting from the interstate pool. In sum, it's not access TO interstate, it's just the result of having two regulators splitting your bill. Incidentally, this FCC proceeding began WELL BEFORE divestiture was even dreamt up, and while it was installed coincident with it, it technically has NOTHING TO DO with divestiture! It would have happened had the Bell System remained in place. Really. Check it out. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 opinions are mine alone. sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:32:24 GMT [ IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to a stupid mistake on my part, the list as it stood on 14 MAR 90 was lost. I apologize profusely (you can send flowers to the sysadmin who doesn't do daily incrementals any more). Everyone who asked to be added please ask again -- I'll be more careful from now on. ] This is the second announcement of the creation of a mailing list (a reflector, to be precise) for the discussion of issues relating to using ISDN as a transport mechanism for TCP/IP traffic. The list is a means for people implementing systems to communicate with one another, as well as to discuss issues peculiar to using moderately-fast point-to-point reconfigurable serial links for internetworking. Since different configurations allow different techniques for sending the data (for example, a single workstation that dials up a server directly would be able to elide IP-headers and most of the information in each TCP-header as communication progresses). As a favor to anyone who has trouble with mail aliases longer than 8 characters (or who just hates to type long names), the group is called "tcp-isdn" rather than "tcp-ip-isdn" (*). Requests to be added to the list should be sent to: tcp-isdn-request@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu Articles to be distributed to everyone on the list should be sent to tcp-isdn@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (Notice, for those who usually send to user@cs.uiuc.edu, that the word "brutus" is _not_ optional!) Johnny List (*) I opted against IP-ISDN since I think that using ISDN as a transport mechanism for IP-datagrams ("ISDN as Ethernet") is only one of a number of interesting ways of doing things, and didn't want to express a bias. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" Subject: Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted Date: 14 Mar 90 17:42:52 CST Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services I am working on a project that will describe & compare electronic mail, fax, and voice mail. Although I have searched the electronic databases here, I'm not finding anything that compares these processes. Is there anything out there (preferably FTP) that will handle this comparison? I am most interested in each equipment's business use. Specifically, I am looking for: 1. How to choose which device for use in your business. 2. Humorous anecdotes, satire, etc about e-mail, fax, and voice mail. Thanks in advance. Steve Huff Internet: HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu or 2HJAAHOY@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Bitnet: HUFF@ukanvax.BITNET or 2HJAAHOY@ukanvax.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG Date: Wed, 14 Mar 19:41:30 GMT In comp.dcom.telecom, article <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Jim Shankland writes: < In article <5016@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Lesher < writes: < >According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone < >administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is < >ringing, busy or hung at the switch. Not in Germany. Some other European contries, like Austria, have that problem. < That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich. < Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM < each. A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of < its length. Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit, < rather than money per minute. The phone company (== post office) < started counting message units when the connection was established. Today, the unit is 0.23 DM. They recently dropped the general 1% rebate (for wrong connections and general non-reliability). Local calls now cost one unit per eight minutes (12 minutes, 18-8 o'clock). Most long-distance calls are 15 (38 4/7) seconds per unit -- about DM 55 (21), or US$ 30 (12), per hour. < Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message < units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; < there was no itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their < word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, < "But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. The technology still isn't there. Almost everywhere, you can't even get touch tone dialling. But even where they have fairly modern technology, you can't get a list of the numbers dialled, this being justified by the magic word "privacy". Nonsense -- hell, it's _my_ phone line and bill! (The same reasoning is applied to the Telecom (new name for the wiry part of the Bundespost)-operated X.25 network.) Matthias Urlichs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 18:31:40 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bob Stampli writes: >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. I asked Pacific Bell about this a couple of months ago, and much to my surpise, it made sense. A line that can only place local calls *does* have access to the interstate network, as it can *receive* calls from out-of-state. If they could block such calls (they probably can't), I don't know what the answer would be. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:41:08 EST From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Being Charged For No-Answers I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does "least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various technical issues had been laid to rest. Am I right? Now, I'm wondering (1) whether there is any technical excuse: (a) in general, or (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or (c) for international calls. (2) whether this violates any tarriffs. I will be pursuing this with our telecommunications people as well, but would appreciate the commentary of all you smart and disinterested telecom experts. Liudvikas Bukys University of Rochester Rochester, NY USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:46:36 -1000 From: Todd Olson Subject: Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) Reply-To: Todd Olson Organization: University of Hawaii In article <5123@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!segal%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 4 of 10 >I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America. >Here are the details: [....] >Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states. I thought that there were 50 states? I guess I don't live in a state, huh? Where do I live then in a foreign country? Damn, I thought I was an American; I guess not ... Does this mean I don't have to pay taxes? ____ ___ _ _ ___ __ ___ / / / / \ / \ / / / ( / / /\ / olson@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu / /__/ /__//__/ /__/ /__ __) /__/ / \/ "Women: can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." - Norm of Cheers fame [Moderator's Note: I *think* (am not sure) he meant the 48 contiginous states on the mainland. There are some long distance plans which do not take in Alaska or Hawaii (as was the case with Reach Out America at first, and AT&T WATS for many years.) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #174 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03976; 16 Mar 90 15:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00810; 16 Mar 90 10:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05582; 16 Mar 90 8:21 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 7:41:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #175 BCC: Message-ID: <9003160741.ab03028@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 07:40:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Will Martin] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Carl Moore] Re: White House "Caller ID" [David Tamkin] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Tom Neff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 10:45:49 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision >Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other >utilities but not from the phone company? It's certainly not because of the >amount of money involved. The average person's average phone bill is probably >a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and >a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). It is because the *basis* for the billing from the telco is so different from the billing from the gas or electric company. The electric company doesn't care what you plug into the sockets, and it doesn't charge you differently for electricity that runs your stereo vs. that which cooks your food (though I admit some areas DO have time-of-day usage differentials in electric bills, so you pay less for power used at night). The telco bills you differently depending on multitudinous factors. And they certainly make mistakes; not only have we all had evidence of this personally, but many examples have been posted to this group. There's nothing that keeps you from hooking your own electric meter inside your house to the incoming line, and computing yur own bills as a check on the electric-utility's billing. It wouldn't be too cost-effective, but it would be fairly straightforward. To do the same for your phone line would require a dedicated computer (probably); some businesses actually do that and products to do this are marketed. In order to avoid the expense of doing that, we want information from the telco as to their basis for charging us. If we are being billed some large amount for a call to Mozambique, we want to know about it, not have it buried in and hidden by a message-unit charge total that happened to be clicking off at 300 per second for that call, as opposed to once every 10 seconds for a call next door. Why do the Europeans allow such non-itemized billing when Americans object? Because our fundamental attitudes are different. (Unfortunately, that difference is decreasing as traditional American anti-government principles deteriorate...) Telcos in Europe tend to be governmental organizations, like the Deutsche Bundespost, which impose a great deal more weight on the user and have much less of an attitude of "serving the customer" than even Ma Bell at her height of monopoly had. We've all heard the tales of poor service, waits for months or years to get phones installed, the ridiculous anti-modem regulations, etc., in Europe and other areas. [Almost as bad as in GTE-land... :-)] The American attitude tended to be to let the private-enterprise telco do *almost* anything it wanted, but to beat it about the head and shoulders now and then with the state or local-area Public Utility Commissions or equivalents. One aspect of that was to force the telco to at least *specify* what it was charging us for, even if it could [in reality] get away with charging us whatever it really wanted to for those things. Also, there is the simple historic precedent -- if you'd always been given a detailed breakout of the charges, the mechanism for collecting and disseminating that data *was* in place, so it might as well be used, and, if the customer always had received that info, they expected to continue to receive it. Inertia plays a big part here, too... Many years ago, I think in some telephone-hacker publication or article on phreaks I happened to run across, I read a prediction (or a hope) that someday the telco would charge you for usage at a flat rate. Whether you made a long-distance call or a local call, whether you used conference-call facilities or other exotica, or just called your Aunt Mabel to chat, you'd pay the same low per-time usage charge. I *think* this was sort of in the same light as the '50's-era predictions that nuclear power would make electricity so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering, though... :-) This seems to be based on the theory that the electronics and computers that run the telco facilities would become so cheap that it wouldn't be worth the effort of determing what facilities you were using. I think history has shown that to be incorrect; the billing is moving more and more in the opposite direction, with the cheap computing facilities being used first for accounting, in order to identify and bill for more and more specific things. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 09:48:27 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > And how is that any different from the typical electric, > water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items > is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our > meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". What > would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But > sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could > I possibly have used that much?" Perhaps you are making a good argument for the itemiztion of electric and water bills. Maybe it could be done by usage on each day. Last year, a client received a bill from PG&E (Pacific Graft & Extortion), the local power company for approximately three times the normal amount. This was for electrical consumption at their mountain top transmitter site. The site demand is 20KW day after day, year after year. I explained this to PG&E who insisted that their meter could not possibly be in error. Had we perhaps left something on inadvertently? Had someone connected up an extension cord on the hill to steal power? I asked the person if he was serious; the electrical service couldn't withstand three time the normal draw! Not only that, but their own meter showed the month's peak demand at 20KW. The figures didn't work out. I had to meet them at the site, where they swapped meters and all the while told me that this was stupid since their meters were never wrong. The long and the short of it is that the bills went back to normal. Think how much easier this could have been if there had been some detail to dispute. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:43:41 pst From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? Well actually I am not perfectly happy, *but* unlike the telephone, I can go out and get daily readings off of my meters if I want to. I have access to exactly the same data that is going to go into the billing system. If things start getting weird, I can experiment and watch the effects in "real time" on my account balance. Given this level of control and information. I can discover how my use habits affect my cost and make intelligent decisions on how to change my use patterns. If all I got was a single bill, I wouldn't be able to tell if I was making too many calls to grandma or too many calls to my brother. > It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The > average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than > their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot > lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). We may not be average, but at our house the phone bill is almost the highest in the "utility" category. It's really not very high (in the $60 range), but our other bills are lower. Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:30:31 GMT In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 8 of 10 . Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized .bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? It's .certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The average .person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water .bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than .their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). Because there is less possibility of fraud. It's not real likely that the kid down the block can charge his TV usage to my electric bill. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 14:34:07 GMT Organization: Summit NJ > > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed > > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no > > itemization of calls. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, > water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items > is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our > meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? There are simple answers to this question. The first is that, unlike the gas or electric utilties, there are cases where the phone company will refund the charges after usage (i.e., wrong numbers) or not charge at all for usage (i.e., no answer or busy). Thus, the only way to determine if, in fact, these charges were not posted is to have a fully itemized list. The water company doesn't refund charges due to a non-seating of the toilet valve, nor does the electric company when you leave the refrigerator door open. The second is that immediate access to billing information for water, electricity, and gas is available. If you, for example, want to see how many KWH the electric company is billing you for your airconditioner, just take meter readings two hours before, one hour before, when you turn the A/C on, and one and two hours after. The difference in averages is mostly the A/C usage. The bottom line is that we are not taking the water, electric, etc. company's word for it when we get their bill, as we can independently audit all the information that they're basing their bill on, but we are taking the phone company's word for it. As an aside, about 22 years ago, NY Telephone got a tariff to provide detailed billing for message unit calls (there is no unlimited local service in New York City; message unit calls, from 1 to 6 for the initial period with 1 message unit calls being untimed, cover Nassau County (Long Island), all of New York City, and the southern part of Westchester County, including Yonkers, Rye, and White Plains). Where NY Tel really socked it to anyone who wanted the service was that the minimum for a call would be 2 message units. Now, that might have been okay, but all calls billed as 2 message units, including those to one message unit areas, would be timed (1 message unit every 3 minutes after the first 5 minutes). Needless to say, this service was not very popular. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 15:15:55 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? Because unlike the telephone, each of these has a meter which I can read, measure, and verify my bill with. In fact, with my water bill, I read the meter and send the numbers into the water company (they check every so many years to adjust any discrepencies/deceit). And if I wanted, I could use a one cubic foot bucket to verify or show that the meter is or isn't ripping me off. But when the TELCO tells me to pay up for 15 message units, how do I know this is correct and if it isn't correct how do I prove it. Given the proven abusive nature of such companies I wouldn't be surprised is their computers are "accidentally" overcharging people. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:06:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" I don't know how President Carter's call-in was done. I do recall it was toll-free, on a 900 number (done so that it would not interfere with the normal long-distance traffic), and that calls from the DC area to that were routed via Wayne, Pa. (near Philadelphia). The number was 900-242-1611, if I remember, and someone in the Milwaukee area got deluged with calls from some people (in 414 area?) who forgot to dial the 900. This was in 1977. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 18:45:43 CST Jody Kravitz wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 169: | Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in | the white house. The number was a 900 number. I had never heard of a | 900 number before. I was curious then (and am now) if this was done | for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id. | Anyone care to comment ? It could not have been for billing the caller, as those calls were publicized as free. That was the first time I heard of 900 numbers, and that was the only time I have ever heard of a free call to a 900 number. 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: Tom Neff Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 15 Mar 90 18:57:06 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff In article <5155@accuvax.nwu.edu> Torsten Lif writes: >Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains >information to the caller. Hey, the fact that a payphone is not in use (and thus available to the caller) conveys information. I think we should charge 'em for looking. :-) (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism. In a free market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice. If company A charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls. I suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #175 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04177; 16 Mar 90 15:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00810; 16 Mar 90 11:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05582; 16 Mar 90 8:21 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 8:02:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #176 BCC: Message-ID: <9003160802.ab20567@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 08:02:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls [R. Smith] Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale [Doug Davis] UK Telephone System Questions [Doug Davis] Pay Phone Operation [Steven L. Finberg] US WEST Rate Change in Washington State [Roger Clark Swann] ISDN Local Station Wiring [Roger Clark Swann] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:32:28 GMT It works both ways. I remember once trying to call somebody (this was years ago, so I may be distorting the details) and by mistake got an old lady on the phone who wouldn't respond to my simple "is this xxx-xxxx?" query. So, I figured I just dialed it wrong, said I was sorry for I had bothered her, and tried again. Got the same lady. Obviously I had the wrong number, but she wouldn't give an inch to any of my queries as to what number I had actually reached, etc. I tried DA and they gave me back her number again. Obviously some sort of foul up so I called the operator and asked her for help. She dialed the number, got the old lady again, who by this time was so freaked out she could only sob into the phone "why do you keep bothering me!?" or something like that. I never did resolve the problem. I feel sorry for the old lady, but she could have prevented some of her grief is she had just confirmed that I had really reached the number I thought I dialed. I have a funnier story about wrong numbers too. One day a couple of years ago, the phone rings. The caller asks for somebody. I say I think he has a wrong number ask what number he is trying to reach. He says 718-636-11238. No, that's not a typo. It didn't sound right when he said it, but I couldn't figure out why it sounded funny, so I asked him to repeat it. Yup, he wanted 718-636-11238. I point out to him that he doesn't have the right number of digits, thinking how strange it was that there is anybody in the USA who doesn't know that a phone number must be 7 or 10 digits. Of course that's true, but this guy was calling from (if memory serves) The Netherlands. I was a bit surprised when he asked me if I would mind looking up the correct number for him (seems like an expensive way to get DA but, hell, if he's willing to pay for the transatlantic call, I'm game). He gives me the name and an address which must be just a few buildings away on the next block from me! I find him the number and we chat a few minutes. Well, to make a long story short, here's what must have happened. It's not surprising that the party he was trying to reach lives near me; after all, he just screwed up in the last few digits and reached somebody unexpected in the same area code and exchange. The odd part, is that my phone number is 718-636-1123 and my zip code is 11238! He must have somehow merged an area code and exchange with a zip code, dialed the resulting 11 digits (the last of which was ignored by the US switches) and gotten me. Now, the unlisted and collect story. We're getting involved in a legal situation. The details are not important, other than the telecom part. We will be placing ads in newspapers soliciting information that may be helpful to us from anybody who might know anything and happen to see the ad. These people are not supposed to know who they are calling (other than my first name), and may be reluctant to call at all, so the ad urges them to call collect. The calls may be far and few between, and every one is precious, so our lawyer says to put an answering machine on the line, with an out going message that starts "Hello, this is Roy. Yes operator, I'll accept the charges if this is a collect call". To cut down on random calls, the number should be unlisted. But I've been reading in telecom digest about these new fandangled computerized collect call systems which do voice recognition sans human operator intervention to determine whether to put the call through. I fear this will interact badly with our answering machine. I asked our lawyer about that. He says not to worry, that there is some way for a caller to get a real human operator on the line. Anybody know more about this? Also, our confidentiality is important in this matter; all the callers are supposed to know is our first names. Our lawyer told us a story of a similar situation in which the caller managed to track down who he was calling via the phone company. Some people in a similar situation to us set up a similar phone line with answering machine and asked people to call collect. Somebody called them, and they ended up establishing a sort of relationship, getting a series of such collect calls over a period of time. Once, the caller forgot to call collect and dialed the number directly. Nobody thought anything of this until the caller got his phone bill and saw a long distance call to a city he didn't think he made any calls to. The number was the same number he had called collect several time before, but that didn't click (it had never showed up on his phone bill before), so he called the phone company to queried the charge. The helpful phone company looked it up and asked him, "You didn't call John Doe in Telco City, Wisconsin on that day?" That gave the caller everything he need to know to track down exactly who the mysterious person was that he had been calling collect for all these weeks was. It seems odd that the phone company would gladly give out the name and address belonging to an unlisted phone number in response to a billing query, but apparantly they did. I once had a similar unrecognized charge on my bill. I called NY Tel and they quickly came back with the name of the person belonging to that number. The confusion was just that I was calling some small town in central New Jersey but the bill came back as Princeton, which wasn't where I called (but I guess it went through a Princeton switch). I don't think it was unlisted, but the billing folks may not even have that information. Anyway, the suggested solution from our lawyer is to have a friend we trust take out the phone in his name, but installed in our apartment. That way, should an overly helpful telco clerk give out more information than we would have liked, all anybody could do is track down our friend, who presumably would clam up. I know this sounds like something out of a spy novel, but I assure you that the legal situation is really not that mysterious and our lawyer is just being paranoid, which I guess is what we're paying him for. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale Date: 14 Mar 90 17:31:45 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. I have the following for sale in whole or in part, this was removed from service when we moved into this building. It was attached to the wall and still powered up (probably left in that state 6-9 Months). It has been sitting in my store room about 2 months after I powered it off and removed it from the wall. I suspect the unit to be functional, but I cannot offer any guarantees to how functional it is. You can reach me via email, daytime (214)-340-5172, or evening (214)-270-9226. 1 Executone KSU 2496/K21001 Series 5. Contains: # Type of card Slot Model Number(s) on card 10 2 Line Co (CO/LS) K21023 10 3 Station (LC ) K21039 LC/2496A 1 Off Premises? (OP ) K21029 1 EPA? (EPA ) K21007 EPA/2 1 CPU (CPU ) K21020 CPU-3 1 FX (FX ) K21201 FX2 Additional: 1 Power Supply for above (Model K21003) Series 3. 1 External Pa Amplifier (Model 4402001) 10 watts output. 4 Unknown (possibly external ring boxes) Model K21005 Series-I [ OPX-5 ]. Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun||texbell}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org "Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?" "Piece of cake, Master? Radial slice of baked confection ... coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero." ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: UK Telephone System Questions Date: 15 Mar 90 04:57:05 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. This is probably going to open a can of worms, but ... what problems am I going to encounter using U.S. telephone equipment, specificly a Trailblazer T2500 modem in the U.K.? The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc. Please answer via mail, I'll summarize if there is enough interest. Thanks, Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun||lawnet||texbell}!letni!doug or doug@letni.lonestar.org "Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?" "Piece of cake, Master? Radial slice of baked confection ... coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero." ------------------------------ From: "Steven L. Finberg" Subject: Pay Phone Operation Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 21:19:11 GMT While local calls from pay phones are still $.10 here in MA (at least from real NET/NYNEX ones), I noticed they are rather user unfriendly compared to the Bell of PA ones I used last weekend. The problem seems to be associated with the way calls are timed. The phone delivers a dial tone with out a coin, but insists on ten cents before any local call can be dialed. So far no problem. The problem occurs about once a minuite durring the first three, - the battery and talk path are broken for about 3 seconds, making conversations difficult, and making it obvious that you are at a payphone. Then about 30 seconds before the end of the 3 min initial period, a recorded "operator" comes on demanding 5 cents more for the next 3 min! No matter when you put the nickel in she dosen't stop talking till she is done her whole speel. This makes for significant breaks in any conversation. Any ideas why the talk path interuptions are needed? And why the recording can't be stoped as soon as the coin deposited? The Bell of PA phone wanted 25 cents but didn't ever interupt, I don't know what the initial period was, as I never made any extended local calls. ************************************************************************** Steve Finberg PO Box 82 MIT BR Cambridge MA 02139 617-258-3754 w1gsl@athena.mit.edu ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State Date: 15 Mar 90 06:08:19 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA Just received my US West bill for March and included is the following notice regarding rates: Our Rate Structure is Changing In accordance with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Fourth Supplemental Order, US WEST Communications is simplifying its rate structure as of February 15, 1990. As a result, most US WEST Communications customers will experience a monthly rate decrease. No customer will receive an increase. How Will This Affect You, Our Customers? _Long_Distance_From_US_WEST_Will_Cost_You_Less_ Effective February 15, 1990, US WEST will temporarily reduce its long distance rates. That price reduction will be replaced on July 1, 1990, with a new "call timing method" that will, on average, amount to a four percent savings. This new call timing will more accurately reflect your long distance usage. It will reduce the timing of calls longer than one minute to six-second increaments. _Local_Service_ The multitiered structure used to calculate monthly rates will be streamlined. As a result, most residence customers will experience a decrease in their monthly local service. [ Do they really mean that service will be decreased? :-) ] _Suburban_Mileage_ All Suburban Mileage charges will be eliminated. _Party-Line_Service_Improvement_ US WEST Communications will begin a five-year program to expand current facilities in order to provide one-party service for all customers. One-party service enables customers to place long distance calls without the use of the operator, to choose their long distance carrier and purchase discounted packages. For customers who currently have party-line service, they may retain this service at their current address. WARES-0290 Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: ISDN Local Station Wiring Date: 15 Mar 90 06:36:35 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA Someone asked recently here about local station wiring for ISDN. Here in my office there is some remodeling going on currently involving the same. ATT is installing several new drops for ATT 7500 series ISDN sets and rather than use the plain four pair cable that they use for the 2500 sets ( for the poens ), they are using a shielded type cable. I have a piece here and it reads: TENSOLITE (SJ) CL2P 150'C 24 AWG (UL) What I find strange about this stuff is the color coding... There are four pairs: RED - BLACK GREEN - BLACK BLUE - BLACK WHITE - BLACK ( the shield surrounds the whole bundle ) The only way to identify the BLACK conductors is to find which color they are twisted with. I think I perfer the scheme where a colored cond. is paired with a white cond. with that same color stripe on it. In addition, the conductors are stranded, rather than the conventional solid. Hope that this helps whomever needs it. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #176 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00941; 17 Mar 90 0:44 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20038; 16 Mar 90 23:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12110; 16 Mar 90 22:03 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #177 BCC: Message-ID: <9003162105.ab02481@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Bob Sutterfield] Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Andrew Boardman] Re: Can This Be True? [George Pell] Re: Enhanced 911 [Steve Swingler] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Jeff Carroll] Re: 900 With a Twist [Tom Betz] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [David Tamkin] Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Hank Nussbacher] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:45:13 GMT In article <5158@accuvax.nwu.edu> gutierre@oblio.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) writes: You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that. Try contacting the folks at the Stargate project (mark@stargate.com) - they did (do?) news over spare bandwidth on Ted Turner's network. The economics tilted somewhat away from their scheme with the introduction of the Trailblazer and widespread use of NNTP, as well as the universal availablility of UUNET. I don't know whether the project is officially belly-up or still in business serving a smaller niche. ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: 15 Mar 90 19:37:17 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) In article <5136@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >> I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume >> levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... >I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up >and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. Not necessarily. I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back. In all tests (BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one. Sprint had the best signal levels. I doubt it's a quirk so much as different results for different conditions. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:27:54 EST From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating In article <5181@accuvax.nwu.edu> bukys@cs.rochester.edu writes: >I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for >long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or >not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does >"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. All of the ROLM systems I have seen have done very clever things as far as returning call supervision to calling parties (they don't until they *sbsolutely* have to; following the letter of the law lets them get away with some interesting things), *HOWEVER*, "supervision" is a foreign word when it comes to outgoing calls. The rationale I've gotten from ROLM and other *BX vendors is that they are primarily targeting for a business environment, and businesses aren't particularly concerned with calculating which account made which calls, as they are all presumably made to further the cause of the business. >Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges >for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various technical >issues had been laid to rest. Am I right? As the saying goes, no one ever gets fired for buying (recommending to buy, et cetera) IBM stuff. "How could it have been the wrong choice, it was made by IBM!" The consumer world is not the business world, not by far. >Now, I'm wondering > (1) whether there is any technical excuse: > (a) in general, or No. I've worked on several ROLM boxes, and they've *all* been junk. > (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or No. (presuming any sort of sanity with outgoing trunk connections) > (c) for international calls. Hmm... not so sure about this one... > (2) whether this violates any tarriffs. As far as I can tell, no. (I wish!) I currently live in Columbia University housing, and am forced to live with an IBM/ROLM 9751. Most people were quite unhappy with the price/performance ratio of ROLM when it was newly installed, and some people (students, like me) were looking for any means at all to get out of it (from lawsuits to starting their own telephone service (a certain party with a NYNEX line and a 5 station key system won't be mentioned :->)). It's a classic case of the fascist-university-wants-to-be-a-telephone-company-too thing that's been posted about a lot lately. I thought AT&T would stop appearing in my *local* phone bills after 1984. (They still do, courtesy ACUS.) [I eventually forked over for having a New York Tel. line installed in addition to the ROLM line. The ROLM only gets use for those under-45-second calls. (Like those $50 900 numbers and such.) (Of course, two weeks later, idiot contractors cut through *all* of the New York Tel lines around here, and the out-of-service credits for the month it took to get fixed (during the NYNEX strike) counterbalanced my phone bills for months. The striker-replacement "repair" people were really pathetic. My line was fixed within 48 hours of the end of the strike. :-> (They traced the problem in about 15 minutes, and then spent the next few hours ripping out a wall (*not* mine :->) with three of their friends to get at the cable break. (They said it was the most fun they'd had in a while.)))] Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet or try amb@ai.ai.mit.edu if the Columbia machines are having problems ------------------------------ From: George Pell Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 15 Mar 90 23:34:56 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <5130@accuvax.nwu.edu> rp@xn.ll.mit.edu (Richard Pavelle) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10 +I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told +me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a +paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance +calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe +the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to +complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. +Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor +that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? When I was 15 (quite a few years ago) with the older style pay phones like the moderator described in his followup, we used to make calls using a coke cup cut into a strip the width of a dime, inserting it into the dime slot (calls were a dime), and dropping pennies into the quarter slot. You may have had to bang the coin return at the same time, but I don't remember now. geo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:24 CST From: Steve Swingler Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs. It simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database. It has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind is the City of Seattle. They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator. The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed. Steve Swingler Center for Computing and Information Systems Baylor University ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 15 Mar 90 19:33:56 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <5083@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: >In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, ken@cup.portal.com writes: >>I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some >>airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the >>phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax >>machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! (stuff deleted)> >A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably >be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?). The "teleport" at SeaTac Airport is provided by USWest Communications. There's one in the north satellite (i.e., the United terminal), one in the main terminal (though rather hard to find), and, presumably, one in the south satellite, the international terminal, though I haven't been out there to check. International flights from Seattle are to places I don't go. SeaTac, despite its role as an international hub, is a relatively large, spacious, and empty airport, which had room to spare for such services (the airport is much older than the "teleport".) I would guess that, even in other cities served by USWest, there probably isn't existing room in the airport terminals for such a service. (Do Denver, Portland, and Minneapolis have them?) I would also conjecture that vandalism in the average airport is much higher than at SeaTac. Further, the authority governing SeaTac airport is only very loosely coupled to other governmental agencies. The Port of Seattle is governed by a board of commissioners, who are directly elected by the voters of King County, and tend overwhelmingly to be businessmen rather than politicians. The mayor of Seattle has nothing at the airport with his name on it, except newspapers. Would the airlines provide such services? Maybe, but I doubt that we'd be satisfied with their quality (and/or cost). Ditto for the airport authorities (too much chance of politically-based patronage of somebody's fly-by-night operation.) I'd write to the local BOC. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: 900 With a Twist Date: 15 Mar 90 21:40:46 GMT Reply-To: Tom Betz Organization: Greyston Business Services Quoth Jeffrey Silber in <5071@accuvax.nwu.edu>: |X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 166, Message 5 of 11 |900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting |kids to run up their parents' phone bill). I saw a new twist on the |900 number this weekend. A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using |one for part of their telethon. If you don't want to make a major |pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember, |your call will cost $5.00." WNET has been doing it for about a year... initially the calls were $10 each, but now they have both $10 and $20 lines. They use them to "shorten the on-air pledge period"... "I don't run - I tend to black my eyes." - D.Parton | hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz | tbetz@upaya.lilink.com "One minute I'm in the pasture porkin' ponies, | Tom Betz - GBS the next I'm a can of Mighty Dog!" - Secretariat | (914) 375-1510 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 1:29:37 CST Robert Stampfli wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 167: | OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for | local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be | charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that | this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for | something I cannot use. 1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls? They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX? [Perhaps the link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800 dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the subscriber line charge fairly quickly.] 2. Would the telco really cancel this charge on the strength of a customer's personal solemn promise not to place any long-distance calls? 3. Can your local telco, as Steve Forrette pointed out, block incoming long-distance calls? I truly doubt it. If you receive a long-distance call, you are using the link from the l/d company's local POP to your own CO. You don't even get to choose which long-distance carrier it is, because the caller makes that decision. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:15:56 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil >3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be >accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what >facilities does it offer? Try either of these people. INTERDATA is the Brazilian equivalent of Telenet or Tymnet. EMBRATEL is the Brazilian PTT. Brazil: INTERDATA Mr. Armando F. Castanon or Mr. Arne Freinsilber EMBRATEL EMBRATEL Av. Pres. Wilson 231 / 10o andar Av. Marechal Floriano 99/12 andar Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22031 Rio de Janeiro 20080 Phone: +55 (21) 2403306 Phone: +55 (21) 2168328 Fax: +55 (21) 2103182 or 2168637 >4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a >direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper >than calling in the other direction? The costs for connecting to the USA from Brazil are as follows: Country Cost per Cost per Fixed Maximum connect 64,000 cost speed hour characters per month -------------+-----------+------------+-------------+--------+ Brazil | $20.55 | $26.25 | none | 1200 | Anytime, Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Date: 15 Mar 90 07:41:43 GMT Organization: very little Stan Krieger asked about why someone would lie to him when he has dialed a wrong number (but not misdialed) and wants to verify the number with them by asking "have I reached (x-number)?"...then they say "no", and he calls back and gets them again. I have had this happen, and here is what is really going on. You have accurately dialed what was originally a wrong number, but it comes on as part of a group of lines into a business. Like where I work, our main number is 881-7000. If that line is busy, it rotates to the next line, and the next line, etc. Each line has its own number, and it is not consecutive, like 881-7001, etc. So the receptionist or whoever answers our phone at work, says, "no, you haven't reached 881-7459, this is 881-7000." She is not lying, she just doesn't know what the number is for the third line in the trunk group, or whatever you have come in on. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #177 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03036; 17 Mar 90 1:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22091; 17 Mar 90 0:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20038; 16 Mar 90 23:07 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:41:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #178 BCC: Message-ID: <9003162241.ab13088@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:40:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Special Issue: CLASS Features [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Linc Madison] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls [Steve Elias] Re: More Greed [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: Enhanced 911 [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Peter da Silva] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Steve Forrette] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Scott Fybush] Choke Lines [Carl Moore] Choke Exchange (was Re: More Greed) [Blake Farenthold] "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom) [Mike Godwin] Satellite Data Link [Steven L. Finberg] Information Needed Re: TPC 100 [Robert Masse] When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Scott Fybush] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:23:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue: CLASS Features The special issue for this weekend will be a detailed report of CLASS features provided to the Digest by Chris Ambler of Cal Poly. This issue will be distributed sometime Saturday afternoon or evening. My thanks to Chris for sending it along. Incidentally, for a good time: 'finger cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu'. You won't regret it! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 02:17:25 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Stamfli writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Oh, but you'll still have to pay the access charge, unless you manage to get a line which blocks *INCOMING* long-distance calls. The reason I know is that I was the system administrator for a small residential Centrex system (11 lines). One line was the answering machine, left in a public area. To prevent any unexplained calls to Kathmandu, the line was restricted to place outgoing calls only within the Centrex system. However, because the line was still connected to the long-distance system for incoming calls, we still paid the FCC access charge, per Pac*Bell's ever-joyous interpretation of CPUC Tariff. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:54:28 -0500 From: Steve Elias According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal. I don't know where such a law is listed. Perhaps it is written into the tariffs somewhere. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ; ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: More Greed Date: 15 Mar 90 15:03:02 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke >lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy? Last week, I >tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in >Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry... You got it. Since the long distance carriers (ATT...) have to pay for local TELCO access charges and tie up their capacity just to get a busy signal on the far end (and hence no revenue), if the far end number is getting a lot of calls and is busy the network software blocks all future calls on the local end automatically/regardless. So forget getting those Bruce tickets, unless you're local to the phone order handling company, your call isn't even getting close to having a equal shot at getting in. Your best bet is to call a friend in upstate Vermont etc. where nobody is likely to be calling in and hence no block is in effect in their LD hub. A related anecdote -- when something like MTV has a 800 number phone poll they only answer the phone 50 times (and only pay for 50 800# calls) of the 80,000 calls that come in. Therefore, the LD carrier loses money each day since the 50 call revenue is far less the thousands of local TELCO access charges. (Usually when you call an 800# and it is busy you call back and get through with the charge for the sucessful large enough to cover the unsuccessful ones.) ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 15 Mar 90 15:24:32 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I >believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.) ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 12:49:52 GMT > What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But > sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could > I possibly have used that much?" Actually, if you have reason to believe that your bill is in error they are happy to work with you to figure it out. They're selling you kWH, and if you didn't get them you're entitled to a refund. The phone company is selling you bandwidth. If you don't get it, then you're entitled to a refund. > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? Because it's not technically feasible to get non-itemised bills from other utilities, perhaps? What would an itemised bill from the power company look like? "Refrigerator: $27.75, A/C: $57.21, ..."? _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 03:07:03 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> Roy Smith writes: >In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: >> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed >> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no >> itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that >> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I >> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? It's different because with an electric or gas bill, billing problems can be resolved easily by looking at the meter (it's even CPE :-) ). If there's a reading or billing error, you have the ultimate proof that you are right. I would imagine that these are quite accurate. On the other hand, I'm sure we've all had billing problems of one sort or another with "the phone company." By its very nature it's more prone to error. Where would you be if you didn't get detailed billing? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 16:10:31 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" A 900 number in 1977?!? I was but 5 years old then, so I don't remember, but it seems to me like a lot of COs wouldn't have been programmed to accept a 900 number. Anyone know if that was the case? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" [Moderator's Note: There were '900' numbers in the middle seventies; but not nearly the number we have today. I think there were maybe ten or a dozen in all. Sports, horoscope and the talking clock were among the first, along with national weather. All were one-way; there were no interactive 900 numbers then (except President Carter). A call to 1-900-555-1212 is free; the tape used to last about a minute or less, but now it goes on, and on and on. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:23:33 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Choke Lines Regarding "choke" lines: I am wondering about 215-263 in Philadelphia, Pa., and 609-590 just across the river in Camden, NJ, being "choke" lines. An old gripe for people from Delaware is that both numbers are 11-digit long distance, and this causes problems in getting thru on phone contests, because of the extra digits to dial. More recently, I have heard "263-xxxx inside Phila., 1-800-yyy-xxxx elsewhere", and I can't recall just now what the yyy stands for. (Scott Fybush had written concerning reaching a "choke" number from out-of-area.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:42:02 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Choke Exchange (was Re: more greed) jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: >The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too. >My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise. I can't beleive the radio stations stand for this. When I was working in radio (10 years ago) we fried comthing at the CO giving away $1,000 and a few weeks later the phone company came out with the "radio exchange". We didn't want to change our request/contest line number and told 'em so. They said if we didnt get on the choke exchange the'd cut off ALL our phones if we jammed the CO again. This had some people in the programming and engeneering departments at the station awfully mad. We had several plans. The programmers suggested we urge all our listeners to rip out their phones and march on the business office. The engineers had th better plan though: Let 'em cut off our phones. We'd use the 2 way radios and send a DJ to a payphone.. he'd come on the air and say we're giving the money away to the first caller at xxx-xxxx. We'd fry the phone system every day from a different location. Fortunatly for the station, cooler (management) heads prevailed and we just hopped on the radio exchange bandwagon. But if they started charging listeners for the calls, that seems to defeat the purpose of a give-a-way if not violate FCC rules relating to stations conducting lotteries. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE [Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are simply fees for transporting the message. PT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom Story) Date: 15 Mar 90 15:29:25 GMT Reply-To: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas If anyone is aware of sites that have gone offline or eliminated public access out of fears resulting from the Legion of Doom-related equipment seizures by federal agents and from worries that system administrators may lack common-carrier immunity, please send me Email. I'm working with a newspaper reporter here in Austin who'd like to know what effect the seizures have had on the general Net community, as well as any general information about the jolnet and attctc 'stings.' It could be helpful if you include a voice phone number. Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | you dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu | the forms in my dream are you, who like myself (512) 346-4190 | are many and no one." --Borges ------------------------------ From: "Steven L. Finberg" Subject: Satellite Data Link Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:35:53 GMT I am looking to set up a data link, probably full duplex, between a high altitude ultra long duration atmospheric research aircraft and a ground station. On the order of 4800 bits per second of data is to be transfered. Both telemetry and control is being communicated so the transfer must be real time. Over most of the proposed flight paths any number of synchronous comm sats would be visible to both aircraft and the ground control. What is the availability of low bandwidth transponder channnels, who rents them out, how much do they cost? Who makes the "ground" stations? Light weight and an omni directional nontracking antenna for the aircraft would be a big plus. What are the coverage areas of the satellite receivers? Are their footprints only aimed at land areas? Thanks in advance. Steve Finberg PO Box 82 MIT BR, Cambridge MA 02139 617-258-3754 w1gsl@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Robert Masse Subject: Information Needed Re: TPC 100 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:58:35 GMT Can anyone tell me what "TPC 100" is? I have heard it in many conversations but I never bothered finding out what it is exactly. Thanks in advance, Robert Masse (514)466-2689/home Internet: robert%altitude@IRO.UMontreal.CA UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert soon: robert@altitude.cam.org or robert@altitude.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 04:12:15 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs The phone number of Alex's Pizza here in Waltham is 647-5522. Of course, from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522. Naturally any number of people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475. 6475 is a student phone number in one of the dorms, the occupants of which now answer their phone, "Alex's Pizza, may I help you?" Seems to me that if I were assigning numbers here, I would shy away from using ones whose first three digits were the same as the local CO's exchanges, namely 647, 890, 891, 893, 894, 897, and 899. And in fact, no numbers of the form 89xx are used on our phone system. Would it have been that complicated to not use 647x either? Just one of those things that shows the difference between adequate system design and excellent system design, I suppose. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" [Moderator's Note: I had the same problem for awhile several years ago. My office extension was 7262; the carry-out bar and grill on the first floor of the office building had the number RANdolph (726) - 2xxx. Invariably -- almost daily -- five minutes before the start of the lunch hour at 11:45 my phone would ring. Somebody ordering their lunch would be on the line. Some had the courtesy to apologize, while others would say nothing and just click off. Still others were profane *toward me* before hanging up. This was in 1968-69; our phone system was a centrex on a 5-Xbar switch. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #178 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05118; 17 Mar 90 2:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26886; 17 Mar 90 1:17 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22091; 17 Mar 90 0:12 CST Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 0:00:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #179 BCC: Message-ID: <9003170000.ab14122@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Mar 90 00:00:34 CST Volume 10 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Direct Dialing to USSR [Dan Ross] The Assignment from Hell [Blake Farenthold] T1 and DDS Test Equipment [Michael Dorl] When Gremlins Come A-calling [Epsilon] Interesting Use of 900 Service [Chuck Bennett] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [tanner@ki4pv.uucp] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Vance Shipley] Re: Modem Leapfrog To Avoid Toll Charges [Vance Shipley] Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data [Peter G. Capek] Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Dave Levenson] Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Ross Subject: MCI Direct Dialing to USSR Date: 16 Mar 90 17:20:41 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept I just got an international dialing instructions card (with list of codes) with my new MCI card, with a printing date of 2/90. Something new was a listing for "Soviet Union (Moscow Only) 7". I called for rate information, and the MCI rep gave me 011 7095 as the prefix to call (I think 095 was listed here as the city code for Moscow earlier) and the rates, which were lower than AT&T's rates of a year and a half ago (minimum 3 minutes @ $6 something, additional minutes still $2 or more, and operator assisted). The rates are: 1st min addl mins 1pm-2am 2.24 2.01 7am-1pm 1.84 1.72 2am-7am 1.69 1.55 I won't be trying it anytime soon, but I thought it was interesting that MCI was providing such a service. Is it just via AT&T? Is US Sprint doing this too? Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ...!uwvax!dross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 13:59:19 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: The Assignment from Hell I think someone wants to fire me. I have been chosen to evaluate our 40 lawyer law firm's telecommunications needs. First they want me to look at our long distance service. This I can live with, as the change, if any, SHOULD be almost transparent to our users. All I have to deal with are the sales reps. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what I should ask about. So far I figure I need to get: 1) Prices per minute for A) 1+ service B) Dedicated WATS i) installation charges ii) recurring monthly charges C) Credit Cards i) surcharge per call ii) access method a) 10xxx b) 950-xxxx c) 1-800 d) 1-800 to our DISA iii) instant credit? D) Volume Discounts: Do credit card and WATS aggregate to calculate discounts? 2) Billing format/Customer Support 3) Quasi technical stuff A) Is there a local switch? B) Fiber Optics i) Fiber out of THIS city ii) % of calls on fiber iii) is it there own network or are they reselling C) Call setup time D) % of failed called (all circuits busy or other) If you have any comments or suggestions on getting this information or on another questions to ask, PLEASE let me know. SECOND they want me to determine if we need a new PBX. I'm starting off with the idea we do not. We have an ITT system 3100 and it does everything I can think of that we need. DID, SMDR, Xfers, conference calls, forwarding (busy, no answer, always), DISA, paging, camp on, etc. I really can't think of anything we (a bunch of lawyers) need that we don't have. Most attornies don't have computers and those who do need only to tie into our Word Processing mini computer or to dial up Westlaw. But anyway, since I was asked to look at the firm's needs I figured the best way to do it was to survey everyone to see what they need/want in a phone system. I got a list of features of an AT&T System 75, tried to translate the feature descriptions into English (or legaleese) but am not too happy with the results. I was HOPING that some of the telecomm pro's out there might have a list of typical PBX features, in layman's terms I could base my survey on. If so Pleeeeeeeese send it my way. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com We are the people our parents warned us about. Jimmy Buffett ------------------------------ From: Michael Dorl - MACC Subject: T1 and DDS Test Equipment Date: 16 Mar 90 17:28:54 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center I'm interested in test equipment for 56k DDS and T1 lines. I'm just starting to investigate but I think I want gear with following capabilities: Interfaces supported: 56k DDS plain (don't care about secondary channel) T1 D4, ESF, B8ZS (test equip does CSU function) V.35 Capabilities: Test pattern - transmit and receive Standalone loopback testing ,with one unit End-to-end test with two units Able to cause the various kinds of remote loops on T1 and DDS Signal quality measurements such as jitter and spectrum Detect T1 events such as checksum errors, bipolar volations, framing errors, etc. Any other things I should be interested in? Any suggestions on vendors other than FIREBERD? Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet ------------------------------ From: claris!wet!epsilon@ames.arc.nasa.gov Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 05:02:01 PST Subject: When Gremlins Come A-calling I noticed the line status light flickering on one of my lines the other day; how odd, but it's been rainy, and who knows? Then a couple of times the phone would ring -- once. Very strange. So I called repair service, in case Pac*Bell had someone playing with the wires. First surprise -- no human! There's now an automated system that eats DTMF and files trouble reports. OK, I can live with that. Not long after, the phone rings, I pick it up, and I find myself in someone else's conversation; about five seconds later the other parties hang up. The phone rings a few more times (once), but each time I head toward the phone it's idle. Finally it rings twice, I pick it up, I hear another voice say "hello" and a third identify himself as a Pac*Bell rep -- who was quite surprised to actually reach me, apparently the other subscriber was sitting by the phone. We learn that my line has somehow been crossed with a number with a different prefix (but served by the same office). They say they'll get it fixed within a few hours [apparently they did]. I called Pac*Bell billing to flag my account in case I've got an inadvertent party line; we'll get it all figured out next cycle. I have 976/900 blocking, so I don't have to worry about those nasties. There's just one thing that bothers me: I have MCI as my 1+, and it may be months before I know if any unauthorized charges were made on my line. -=EPS=- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 10:59 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" Subject: Interesting Use of 900 Service Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance for its PC based product 1-2-3. The rate structure is a reversal of most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute. One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high trained engineer" for support. They are doing this on a trial basis. It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads. Chuck Bennett UNC, Chapel Hill, NC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:45:51 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision ) [ differentiate between metered, non-itemized billing from the ) phone co and metered, non-itemized billing from the power co ] Easy. In the cases of the power, gas, and water bills, you are receiving a fungible commodity. With the phone bill, you can not reasonably assert that local calls may be interchanged with the call to Brazil, and you must make this assertion or the idea of metered, non-itemized billing is inappropriate. Further, I can verify the readings on the meters for the power, gas, and water by examining my meters. I can, if it pleases me, go out and watch the dials turn and verify that they are turning at the right rate. I can install my own meter (after the company's meter) if it pleases me. You can not, in principle, do this with the phone. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:14:06 PST From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: >> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed >> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no >> itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that >> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I >> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? [...] > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized >bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? [...] Speaking for myself, I can say that I am willing to put up with the utility bills on that basis because I can see the meter, I can see the wires or pipes on my side of the meter, and I trust the utility companies to have aaccurate meters (and if they weren't accurate, how would I know, anyway). The system is too simple for much to go wrong. I don't have to worry about someone on the other side of the country running their toster oven and charging it to my electric bill. Even when things go wrong, it is usually not the utility's fault, rather it is usually some cretin (read Landlord) who is tapping my electric lines to power the hall lights, or the elevator, or something, not an error in billing. The few billing errors I have heard of were simply errors of misreading the meters, and they are usually cleared up quickly and easily. (When a residence gets a bill for $4,000,000,000 worth of electricity used in one month [because the incorrect reading was lower than the last correct reading, so the computer thought it spun around], people at the utility are usually willing to believe that it was their mistake.) As a practical matter, I pretty much accept on faith that my local phone bill is accurate. I have never seen a local call on my bill which I could show was billed incorrectly. It is only the long-distance and monthly charges which cause problems, because of the complicated ways these charges can be generated, and the corresponding increased chance of error. (No flames or horror stories about mistakes in local billing, please.) But since I have yet to go 24 months without finding an error in my long-distance billing, I demand to see it itemized. ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:32:28 GMT My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way back to the PBX? I know of several people in different areas of the US that are. This allows optimal billing back of calls. So, who is getting it? Who is providing it, and how? (T-1,ISDN-PRA,or analog) vances ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:10:36 GMT In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? >I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the >input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll >charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from >the relay station to the destination. I set one of these up once. Trying to dial into our office switch and out again over an FX line didn't work because of degradation of the signal, so I hooked two modems back to back and created a "digipeater"! In order to prevent unauthorized use I hotlined the output of the second modem so it would automatically connect me with the site I was interested in. I also disabled the escape sequences on both. The null modem cable connecting the two must be done correctly so you don't get hung up. vance@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 19:52:52 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data A colleague of mine is looking for a source of information similar to that on the Bellcore V+H tape for the world outside the US. It seems unlikely to exist in any centralized place, but perhaps there's some way to get this from the various national PTT organizations? He'd like to have a way of locating places (for planning data communications) by specifying country code + city code + exchange and translating that into a latitude/longitude. Does anyone know of a source? Peter Capek IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy Date: 17 Mar 90 03:40:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <5072@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given > for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639, > is busy. How do I check what is wrong? That's a relatively local call from here. It answered, and performed as expected when I tried it this evening. But it is a bit out of date. It correctly identified the location of several local and out-of-town places I frequently call, but it had no audible response at all to 708-864. When I tried 312-864, it identified it as Evanston, IL, which was correct until a month ago or so. (But it pronounced it as 'eevanston ill'.) 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: Thu, 15 Mar 90 14:36:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy Today, March 15, the Bellcore number ("enter area code...enter exchange...") accepted my call, but treated all the prefixes I entered as non-existent (i.e., went right on to the next area code prompt). Later in the day I tried again, and I was able to use that service, punch-in and all. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #179 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26061; 17 Mar 90 13:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13724; 17 Mar 90 12:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11608; 17 Mar 90 11:19 CST Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:52:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features BCC: Message-ID: <9003171053.ab07129@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:50:00 CST Special: CLASS Phone Features Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CLASS Phone Features [Chris Ambler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:13:56 -0800 From: Fubar Subject: CLASS Phone Features No. 1/1A ESS Div. 3, Sec. 1z(3) Corporate Software Standards Draft Issue 3/12/90 CUSTOM LOCAL AREA SIGNALING SERVICES (CLASS) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01 GENERAL INFORMATION AT&T developed a set of 1A ESS revenue generating features called LASS (Local Area Signaling Services). Pacific Bell requested customized software enhancements for some of the features, and will refer to them as CLASS (Custom Local Area Signaling Services). Documentation may refer to either acronym. The CLASS features allow increased customer control of phone calls. Existing customer lines can be used to provide call management and security services. The primary basis of CLASS is that the terminating office can obtain the identity of the calling party. Special terminating treatment based on the identity of the calling party can then be provided. The CLASS features are dependent upon an SS/CCS (Signaling System 7/Common Channel Signaling) network and use the SS7 Call Management Mode of operation. SS7 is the next generation signaling system that features flexible message formatting, high speed data transmission (56/64 kbps) and digital technology. CCS is defined as a private network for transporting signaling messages. In the existing voice and signaling network, signaling and voice use the same path but cannot use it at the same time. With SS7, signaling and voice have been separated. Signaling (SS7) is over a high-speed data link which carries signaling for more than one trunk. Refer to Corporate Software Standards, Division 3, Sections 1z(1) and 1z(2) for more information on SS7/CCS. In the initial deployment, the CLASS features will only work on intraLATA calls that are originated from and terminated to switches that are SS7 capable. Although CLASS features will be marketed and sold under the Commstar Custom Calling Feature label, the features will not be available for Centrex and Commstar II customers initially. However, like the other Commstar features, most of the CLASS services can be added to existing telephone equipment and will work on Touch Tone or Rotary sets. The Tracking Code (TC) for installation, translation and trunk work associated with CLASS is 299. All time spent on CLASS should be coded to the TC in order to ensure proper time reporting. 1.02 REASON FOR ISSUANCE This document is being issued in order to incorporate Methods and Procedures with Corporate Software Standards for the CLASS features. Subsequent changes to this document will be noted with a (>). 1.03 DESCRIPTION Seven features, plus Number ID Blocking, Screen List Editing, and Line History are available with the initial deployment of CLASS in the 1A ESS. Pacific Bell renamed the AT&T features; Bellcore has their own feature names. Documentation may refer to any of the names as noted below. Pacific Bell AT&T BELLCORE ------------ ---- -------- Call Block Selective Call Selective Call Rejection (SCR) Rejection Call Return Automatic Callback Auto Recall (AC) Call Trace Customer Originated Customer Originated Trace (COT) Trace Number ID Individual Calling Calling Number Line ID (ICLID) Delivery Number ID Privacy Calling Number Blocking Delivery Block Priority Distinctive Alerting Distinctive Ringing/ Ringing (DA) Call Waiting Repeat Automatic Recall Auto Callback Dialing (AR) Select Call Selective Call Selective Call Forwarding Forwarding (SCF) Forwarding NOTE: Bulk Calling Line ID (BCLID) will not be offered with the initial deployment of CLASS features. Following is a brief description of the CLASS features as well as Line History and Screen List Editing. CALL BLOCK The Call Block feature allows the customer to not receive, or block, calls from a pre-specified list of telephone numbers. The telephone numbers are placed on a Call Block Customer's Screening List. When the calling telephone number matches a number on the screening list, the calling party receives a rejection announcement. The customer blocking the calls (called number) does not receive any indication that a call was made. Activation Code: *60 Deactivation Code: *80 CALL RETURN When activated, the Call Return feature initiates a call to the last telephone number who called the subscriber. If the calling number is idle, the call completes immediately. If the calling number is busy, the request is queued until the line is idle or he request times out. This feature can be used to re-establish a previous incoming call, or to contact a party who called while the customer was unavailable. Activation Code: *69 Deactivation Code: *89 CALL TRACE Call Trace allows the called party to initialize an automatic trace of the last incoming call received. When the customer activates a trace, a message containing the following information is output to the SCC Maintenance Channel: 1. Time the trace was activated 2. DN of the calling party 3. MLHG/multiline indicator 4. DN and LEN of the customer requesting the trace 5. Date and time of the TTY message 6. Date and time the call being traced was received 7. Privacy Indicator 8. CWT Indicator Activation Code: *57 No Deactivation Code required LINE HISTORY Line History provides memory to store the Last Call Directory Number (LCDN), service routines to access the memory and logic to retrieve the LCDNs. Only the LCDN of the most recent originating and terminating call is saved. A permanent Line History Block is maintained for each line in a CLASS office. The LCDN is used in all CLASS features. NUMBER ID The Number ID feature enables the customer to identify the calling party before the call is answered. After the first ring, the calling party's DN is displayed on customer premises equipment (CPE). When the calling party's location is not CLASS equipped, or their telephone call is marked private, a code will be appear on the CPE display (e.g. '000-0000' or 'private' or 'out-of-area'); the display is up to the CPE vendor. No Activation/Deactivation Codes are required. NUMBER Number ID Blocking allows a customer to ID make their telephone number private on a BLOCKING per call basis by dialing an activation code prior to the called number. The term 'private' means that although the calling number is sent to the far end, it is marked private so that there will be no ICLID display of the number; the calling number can still be traced using Call Trace and can also be added to screen lists. This capability is available to all customers in a 1A ESS switch that has CLASS, whether or not they have the Number ID feature. Activation Code: *67 PRIORITY This feature provides a distinctive ring RINGING to the subscriber when incoming calls originate from telephone numbers pre-defined on a Priority Ringing List. When the customer with Priority Ringing receives a call and the calling number is on the list, the called party receives: Special ringing tone if the called number is idle, or If the called customer has Call Waiting and is on a call, they will receive a special tone indicating that a number on their Priority Ringing List is trying to reach them. Activation Code: *61 Deactivation Code: *81 REPEAT Upon activation, Repeat Dialing DIALING automatically redials the last otgoing call dialed from the subscriber's line. It does not matter whether the last call dialed from the customer's line was busy or idle, answered or unanswered. Repeat Dialing is available to POTS and multiline hunt customers as long as the ring back can be directed to a particular number on a unique LEN. If a call cannot be completed immediately due to a busy line, the customer receives a confirmation tone, the call is queued and recall completion is attempted when both parties are idle. The customer with Repeat Dialing receives ring-back ringing (2 short 1 long within six seconds) and upon answering the called party receives regular ringing. Once Repeat Dialing has been activated, the busy/idle status of the called and calling lines is checked every 45 seconds for 30 minutes. Activation Code: *66 Deactivation Code: *86 SCREEN LIST Screen List Editing allows subscribers to EDITING build and change the lists of telephone numbers associated with the Call Block, Select Call Forwarding and Priority Ringing CLASS features. When editing, the subscriber may also hear the entries on the list and obtain instructions. A screening list is activated when it is initially created during feature activation. When the screening list is active and has at least one number on it, the corresponding feature is on. An individual list of DNs is required for each feature that uses screening lists and is associated with the customer's line. SELECT CALL This feature automatically forwards FORWARDING incoming calls from telephone numbers that have been pre-defined on the subscriber's Select Forwarding List. Select Call Forwarding is totally independent from Call Forwarding Variable. Separate activations and 'forward to' numbers will be required. Both features may be activated simultaneously. Activation Code: *63 Deactivation Code: *83 NOTE: On Rotary sets, the '*' is replaced with '11' on all activation/deactivation codes. ------------------------------------------------------ Sig: ++Christopher(); | Fubar Systems BBS Internet: cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu | (805) 544-9234 3/12/24 8-N-1 Also: chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us | finger cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu Bix: cambler | Home of the 13K .plan (and growing) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09010; 18 Mar 90 11:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27557; 18 Mar 90 9:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08989; 18 Mar 90 8:28 CST Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 8:25:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #180 BCC: Message-ID: <9003180825.ab16113@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:25:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 180 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Canada's ALEX [Doug Eastick] Re: London 071, 081 Split [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Leonard P. Levine] Re: Can This Be True? [Amitabh Shah] Re: One More Horror Story [Len Jaffe] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John David Galt] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Roy Smith] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Herman R. Silbiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Eastick Subject: Re: Bell Canada's ALEX Reply-To: eastick@me.utoronto.ca Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:58:59 EST [From ont.general: Bell Canada put a flyer in three major papers on Wednesday promoting their new service, ALEX.] dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman|LSUC|Toronto) writes: >Does Bell really have a lot of service providers signed up? >I note also it's "subject to CRTC approval". >Anyone have the inside scoop? I don't have an inside scoop, but last fall I participated in part of the market research for it (and got $50 for 2 hours of my time). They say the thing plugs into your phone jack (didn't say if it was the existing one, or a new one). About 40 of us (between 20-40 years of age) sat in a lecture-type room and a real slick guy gave us a presentation. They had two TV's, a videodisc player, and a Mac with a joystick. The Mac controlled the videodisc and thus the video. The laptop model shown in the ads looks more practical. Concept we were shown was this: - use the joystick to pick things off a main menu: Banking, Games, Real Estate, Shopping, Movie Rental, News Headlines - For banking you select your Bank (we were told ours was CIBC), and a list of pending bills, with due dates, pops up (Rogers, Bell, Gas). Pick and point to the bills you want to pay, and presto, it's sucked out of your account. He said Rogers and Bell would submit their electronic invoices to the "main computer". Oh ya, you needed to enter a secret code, and if you needed HUMAN help, you could hit a button talk to a Customer Service-like person, real-time. - Headlines involved the top headlines from various networks. We got to watch bits of ABC News Nightline. This was quite irritating to watch because the refresh rate was about twice a second. Ted Koppel's mouth looks quite funny in freeze frame. On the bottom of the screen, while he was reading the "grabber" for the story, menu subtopics appeared such as background info on the Labor Union (if the story was about a labor union). The idea of "only watching what you want more of" is a good one (like NN's Subject menu) but the picture really sucks. I'd wait for ISDN :-). - Real estate: a cross between the freeze-frame things on Rogers at present, and the News coverage described above. You could also hit the magic button and talk to a live Realtor. - Movie Rental: previews of movies (at the bad refresh rate), and ordering. Use VISA/MC to pay, and they guarantee 30 minute delivery (ya right). - Grocery Shopping involved "walking" thru the aisles and picking your products. Products on sale we shown first (Maxwell House Coffee) then you could click to other brands. Something like 3 hour delivery. I picture a small warehouse with lots of little people running around, bagging your order :-). - Storytelling. This one really got me steamed. If your child wants to hear a bedtime story, you can pick a story from a menu and THE ACTUAL AUTHOR will read the story to him/her. It was a good idea, but I figure if you've got the time to click a few buttons, you should have time to sit down with your kid and read. - Video games. This was slightly interessting, and I know the D&D CS types will get a kick out of it. You can "sign up" to play a game and if someone wants to play you they will notify you to come to your terminal and challenge them. We played 4x4 truck racing (I should say, the videodisc showed us it). We didn't actually play with anything, we just answered questions. I wouldn't pay for any of it, but by the support some of the other people in the group gave it, it might work. Comments I can remember: "Can you order beer?" - no "It'll make us a nation of couch potatoes" "It's great, you don't have to leave your house for anything" "F*ck, those games are bitchin" (same guy as the beer question) "Good for the disabled who can't get out that often" "I prefer to pick out my own produce at the grocery store" "Do you have to push the button after you move the stick?" If anyone orders ALEX, please let me know what it's really like. Thanks. Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Date: 17 Mar 90 05:28:59 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <5138@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >However, when I tried MCI, the recording >informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code If they know exactly what you have dialed wrong, why don't they just put the call through? ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Date: 17 Mar 90 05:59:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <5181@accuvax.nwu.edu> bukys@cs.rochester.edu writes: >I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for >long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or >not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does >"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers. I have never quite understood why. What do they have to lose by providing it? But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been answered. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 15 Mar 90 19:50:03 GMT Reply-To: len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu > Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed > before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have > many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary > in the Nineties. Even Milwaukee has had a small (6 station) office space with RJ-11 connectors available to the public, and has had one for more than a year now. If you ask any airport person, they will guide you to it. + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail len@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:04:43 -0500 From: Amitabh Shah In article <5130@accuvax.nwu.edu> rp@xn.ll.mit.edu (Richard Pavelle) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10 > I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told > me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a > paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance > calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe > the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to > complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. > Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor > that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? I have done similar things in my childhood too ;-). The public phones in India (at least in Bombay, where I lived) were designed so that one made a call and only after hearing the called party come on line, you put in the coins. We used to do two things: 1. On some sets, it was possible to communicate using ONLY THE EARPIECE, not the mouthpiece, without using any coins. So you first instruct your mom to speak slowly, and not immediately. Then you alternate between hearing thru' the earpiece, and then speaking thru' it. It really worked. It was easy to get caught doing this, and I was indeed caught once by our school principal's wife. 2. Some very old Indian coins were doughnut-shaped (well, flat doughnuts) - with a hole in the middle. If you had such a coin, then you could tie a string to it and drop it in to complete the connection. Pull it out later when you're done. Ah, those were the days!! Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Upson Hall -- Cornell University (607) 255-8597---------(OFFICE) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 257-7717-----------(HOME) ------------------------------ From: Len Jaffe Subject: Re: One More Horror Story Reply-To: Len Jaffe Organization: Kent State University Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 20:10:26 GMT In article <5124@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes: [College phone horror story...] Let me tell you about the phones at Kent State. I lived in a dorm made up exclusivly of 4 person suites. Each suite had a phone and every 2 suites shared a bathroom. This maent 8 peolple with access to two phones. Ohio Bell would non-randomly assign the phone to one resident of the suite. This lucky individual would be the person with the lowest social security number. I'm originally from New York State so my SSN begins with a zero and all my roommates' SSNs began with a 2 so the phone would always be assigned to me. The phones are rotary. There are no individual codes to protect people from someone using the phone for which you are responsible to call Germany after his phone gets shut off for not paying the $500.00 he has already racked up. Don't laugh! It happened to one of my closest friends. The billing office's attitude has always been, "The phone is in your name, so it's your responsibility." I have been called by collection agencies and had my credit rating threatened over calls I did not make, calls by people who did not live with me. Thanks for letting me let off this steam, it has been building since 1984. Leonard A. Jaffe || "Who needs information?" Telotech, Inc. /\ - Roger Waters 23775 Commerce Park Rd. \/ "It ain't easy being cheesey." Beachwood, Ohio 44122 || - Chester Cheetah Uucp: ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj Phone: (216) 591-0240 I don't speak for Telotech and They'll probably never let me. ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Date: Sat, 17-Mar-90 12:11:21 PST In the USA, the only case where timing must be considered is when the first digit you dial is 0. The zero could be the whole number. What follows is the rest of the scheme, which allows ALL other cases to be distinguished by their initial digits (usually the first two, but sometimes as many as nine). Here are the "old" and "new" systems as best I understand them. At present a few crowded area codes use the "new" system and the rest use the "old." I predict that in a few years all of USA + Canada + carribean will have to go to the "new" system, because we will have run out of area codes possible under the "old" system. (Under the old system an area code must have first digit in range 2-9, second 0-1, third any. New system allows second digit to be any, so the set of possible codes increases by a factor of five!) Old system: First digit 0, second 0 = long distance operator "00", total length = 2. First digit 0, second 1 = International call. This case IS ambiguous, but the ambiguity is not a result of the US system, and you can tell the network you are done by hitting "#" at the end. First digit 0, second 2-9 = Operator assisted call. Ignore the initial zero for purposes of determining length. First digit 1, second 0 = First five digits are a company code, then figure the total length as if the company code were omitted. First digit 1, second 1 = Special function, length set by local phone co. (For example, "1170" turns off my Call Waiting.) First digit 1, second 2-9 = The initial "1" is ignored, figure the length using the rest. First digit 2-9, second 0 = Area code + number, total length = 10 First digit 2-9, second 1 = Check third digit to catch the special cases 411, 611, and 911 (total length = 3). Otherwise it is area code + number = 10. First digit 2-9, second 2-9 = Local number, total length = 7 New system: First digit 0, second 0 = same as old system First digit 0, second 1 = same as old system First digit 0, second 2-9 = 0 + area code + number, total length = 11. (Yes, the new system requires the area code on operator assisted calls to your own area code. Los Angeles does not yet have this but San Francisco does.) First digit 1, second 0 = same as old system First digit 1, second 1 = same as old system First digit 1, second 2-9 = 1 + area code + number, total length = 11 First digit 2-9 = Check second and third digits to catch the special cases 411, 611, and 911 (total length = 3). Otherwise local number, total length = 7 Also, for those of you who aren't from here and haven't heard: California will soon have TWELVE area codes! The new ones are 510 (effective 10/7/91, covers the East Bay section of what is now 415) and 310 (2/1/92, western Los Angeles County). Have a phone time! :) ---> John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com (There IS no save vs. puns! Ahhahahaha!) ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:47:29 GMT In <5259@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes: > from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522. Naturally any number of > people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475. It works the other way too (sounds like deja vu, doesn't it). Some years ago, we had a data line put in at work (must have been around 1980 or so; when having a 212A data set meant all sorts of fuss to install a special line with an RJ-45-somethingorother with an exclusion key phone, etc). It was the only phone in the place where you didn't have to dial 9 to get an outside line. People often forgot that, and would dial 9-xxx-yyy-zzzz and get connected to 9xx-xyy-yzzz. This was before the days of dial 1 for long distance, so the call would go through to some random long distance number. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 17 Mar 90 22:50:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This counter will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the end of the month. By the way, a non-trivial fraction of your cost of telephone service, both local area and inter-LATA, is due to the cost of billing. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #180 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10914; 18 Mar 90 12:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09332; 18 Mar 90 10:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27557; 18 Mar 90 9:35 CST Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 9:20:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #181 BCC: Message-ID: <9003180920.ab03610@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Mar 90 09:20:10 CST Volume 10 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [Jim Rees] Re: Name That Undersea Cable [Jim Thompson] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bob Breum] Re: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Dave Levenson] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Dave Levenson] Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Jim Thompson] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amitabh Shah] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Jim Thompson] Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Carl Moore] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Jeff Wolfe] Re: The Assignment From Hell [Curtis Abrue] Merlin Cordless Phone [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 19:02:45 GMT In article <5170@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary > phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old > technology :) . They both have a distortion problem when speaking in > a normal voice or louder. My guess is overmodulation. Is there a way > to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow? I love that old technology too. If it were a modern phone you'd have to take it apart, unsolder wires, buy an expensive replacement part, etc. But if it really is an old WE unit, the problem most likely is that the carbon granules have started to stick together, which they do when they get old. The cure is simple and requires no dissassembly or fancy test equipment. Grasp the handset firmly by the earpiece end and bang the mouthpiece end hard against a hard surface, like a desktop (no, not your electronic desktop! The old wooden kind). This will unstick (decohere for all you old radio technology fans) the grains and improve the sound quality. ------------------------------ From: jthomp@hosaka.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson) Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Date: 18 Mar 90 07:46:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable," posted Thu, 1 Mar 90: >.." Two blocks south of my house, at each end of the street (east and >west ends, that is) there are large AT&T signs warning us that there >is a buried transcontinental cable and awful things will happen to >anyone who digs without talking to them first. Since the only thing >to the east is the ocean, I presume this is one of the transatlantic >cables. Anybody have an idea which one?" There are several signs that say much the same thing ('transcontinental' even!) running up the street outside where I work/live. (No, I don't live at work, usually.) I'm in Dallas, Tx. No ocean. Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest." -Jenny Holzer ------------------------------ From: Bob Breum Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Dat