Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11637; 24 Mar 90 5:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31704; 24 Mar 90 3:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26534; 24 Mar 90 2:51 CST Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 2:30:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #201 BCC: Message-ID: <9003240230.ab00941@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Mar 90 02:30:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 201 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [David Leibold] Re: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] 911 and Home PBX's [Stuart Lynne] Re: AT&T New Service [Edward Greenberg] Fictitious Directory Listings [Henry Mensch] Re: Need Info on Nationwide Pagers [Michael T. Doughney] Lata,NPA, and NXX Data Needed [Steve Swingler] Help Needed With Installing Second Line [Richard Stanton] Need Phone System Information [Duane L. Christensen] Odd New Number "Recording" [Roy Smith] New Service Allows Same-day Activation of New Phone Number [Bob Goudreau] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: djcl@contact.uucp (woody) Subject: Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (David Leibold) Organization: On time and on track Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 04:13:06 GMT In article <5448@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >exception of a couple of sites in Pinnacles :-) ). Did you mean 911 >coverage state-wide (i.e. I can dial 911 anywhere and get help) or a >central 911 dispatch center that serves an entire state (not very >likely in a large state)? I think the announcement in Nova Scotia means that when 911 happens, it happens province-wide, as opposed to the city-by-city or region-by-region approach taken elsewhere in Canada. ie. dial 911 anywhere in NS to get help, possibly through a central dispatch in Halifax or somewhere. There have been letters to the _Toronto_Star_ about people trying to dial 911 while they were away at their cottages only to get the number not in service recording, or other error. 911 is not province-wide in Ontario at this point. || David Leibold || djcl @contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Mar 23 11:17:08 1990 Subject: Re: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5474@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 194, Message 5 of 8 >I need some advice with a small phone problem here. I am working in a >noisy lab area where it is sometimes very hard to talk on the phone. >The set is of the 2500 flavor, and the problem is that the mic is >picking up the noise such that the incoming voices are covered and the >remote parties are also getting excessive noise, making it hard for >them to hear as well. This is an easy one. Walker makes just the items you need. You can buy them from Graybar or any major phone equipment distributor. Call 1-800-HANDSET and ask for a catalog and applications guide. You can buy an amlified handset with a noise cancelling mic that has a modular connector on it that will directly replace your handset. You can even match the color exactly. 2500's are the easiest to set up, of course. We use these all over: factory floor areas, garages, computer rooms, anywhere there is noise. Please note that a hard-of-hearing handset and a noisy background handset are very different in the characteristics: be sure to get the right one. These are not cheap, but they are worth every penny. You have to try one (and show it to your boss) and you'll even find yourself wanting one at home. Since I'm in the business (and have the key to the stockroom ;-) ) ... I have these in a few critical places myself. I'll bet Patrick would like to have a couple of these at home for his overseas calls, too. IMHO - The PUC's should mandate _all_ paystations have noise cancelling mics and amplified handsets. I have lost more money on calls I could hear on due to background noise (ever notice how all payphone face the road)? In many public areas you see a few paystations with amplified handsets for the hard-of-hearing and I always find these best to use. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Mar 23 11:25:41 1990 Subject: Re: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5477@accuvax.nwu.edu> : Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 194, Message 8 of 8 >Continuing its whirlwind acquisitions, Rochester Telephone Corp. plans >to purchase S & A Telephone Co. of Allen, Kansas. > [...details omitted...] >Biggs said S & A customers will benefit from affiliation with >Rochester Tel. I've worked with many independent telcos: from GTE, United, Alltel, Centel to Winter Park Telephone to Chatham Farmer's Telephone Coop. (remind me to tell you about the time I tried to buy a telco once...) I've also worked with Rochester Telephone. Think we could get Rochester Telephone to buy GTE Ohio? The attitude of RT employees was always one of the best of any independant telco I worked with. I hope they don't lose that as they grow ... many other telcos have, that's for sure. You could actually get someone who knew something to call you back from RT (once you found 'em). I still like the attitude of really small companies like Pinnacles and Beehive Telephone best. (Aanyone ever read the Art Brothers columns in TE&M ?) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Subject: 911 and Home PBX's Date: 23 Mar 90 09:34:25 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates One interesting problem associated with using low cost PBX's at home is that they typically do not automatically select line to dial out on when you pick up a handset. For example on my Panasonic 308 to get an outside line you have to dial 81, 82 or 83. How do I explain to my kids that you don't dial 911, but 81 then 911 when they are at home but just 911 somewhere else (three and five years old). And if they get a busy signal (what's a busy signal dad?) to try 82 the 911. I'm told that it's not a technical limitation, the switches could be designed to hunt for a free line but that then the telephone companies want to sell you more expensive "pbx" lines. If you want to use standard telephone lines the user has to select the outgoing line, the switch cannot do it for him. I'm waiting for the first time someone in California (for example, any state with strong consumer laws and lot's of lawyers will do) to have some serious loss due to a delay from not being able to dial 911 directly from one of these phones and sue everyone in sight (owner of phone, telephone company, manufacturer of switch etc). Perhaps what Panasonic should do is to have a special 911 mode, where the switch drops the call on line 1, gets a dial tone, dials 911 and then connects the set that dialled 911 to that line. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) [Moderator's Note: Who would they sue, the installer and owner of the system? This is not a case where you are at the mercy of some place which chooses to use the system; you bought it, installed it and apparently prefer to use it. When I had my PBX here, 81 and 82 would do exactly what yours is doing: select individual outgoing trunks. If the selection was busy then it did not hunt. However dialing 9 selected from either open trunk. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 08:39 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: AT&T New Service According to "Nikko" at 1-800-222-0300 (AT&T Residence Long Distance) the new AT&T service for calling one area code at a discount for $1.90/ month will be available for ordering in April. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:04:07 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Fictitious Directory Listings Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu I had such a setup some years ago, with a fictitious roommate. Don't tell them any more than they need to know; they'll engage their limited intelligence to parse your request and come up with the wrong answer every time. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 23:19:22 EST From: "Michael T. Doughney" Subject: Need Info on Nationwide Pagers I used a Skypager for about a year and a half, and found it almost indispensable. I had no problems using it in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Atlanta, New Orleans, SF-Bay Area, Chicago, New York, and at home in the Washington-Baltimore area. They are using a single nationwide 900mhz frequency, which provides great building penetration - I have been paged twice while deep in the New York subway system! However, their coverage may be unacceptable in outer-suburban and rural areas. They used to have a coverage map book, you might ask for this if you think this might be a problem. I have heard from a reliable source that SkyPager has secured the same frequency for Canada, and Toronto will come on-line later this year. Apparently they've also secured a government contract for which they will be expanding coverage to cover all military bases in the U.S., and resort areas that off-duty personnel frequent. The Time-of-Day page feature is handy to set up reminders or wake-up calls for yourself, and the Page Recall feature helps if you're out of range for a time. If you're flying, this might not be for long - I've been paged in the air somewhere over Arizona. As for other systems, I tested a Cue pager about three years ago. This system uses (used?) an FM broadcast subcarrier; I found it had no coverage inside buildings, including in the basement office of their sales rep. Disclaimer: Just a satisfied Skypager customer. Mike Doughney (mtd@ai.ai.mit.edu) Computer TimeShare Corp. / Digital Express Group, Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland (301) 220-2020 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 15:28 CST From: Steve Swingler Subject: Lata, NPA, and NXX Data Needed I am in dire need of a file containing lata information for every NPA and NXX in the U.S. If anyone has this information in ANY electronic form and can send it to me, or tell me where it is available via FTP, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks for you help! Steve Swinglers Center for Computing and Information Systems Baylor University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 13:35:51 PST From: Richard Stanton Subject: Help Needed With Installing Second Line I want to get a second line installed in my house. I've heard that the necessary changes to the inside wiring are very simple, and to save money I'd like to do it myself if this is the case. I'd really appreciate any help in this direction. Hints on how to go about it, or suggestions for where to look for details, would be extremely welcome. Either post replies, or e-mail me, and I'll summarize replies. Thanks, Richard Stanton pstanton@gsb-what.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: "Duane L. Christensen" Subject: Need Phone System Information Reply-To: "Duane L. Christensen" Organization: U S West Communications Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 20:50:41 GMT I am writing this request for software/hardware for a friend. She is looking for a "Call Accounting Package" for a law firm. The attorneys charge for the phone calls and for the time on the calls to their clients. They want to be able to enter a code on the phone itself, and then later generate some detail and summary reports. They currently have a system that does this, but it only allows a limited number of codes to charge to (they need to charge to 3000+ different codes), and the attorneys have to go through some convoluted steps to enter the account codes. If anyone out there, knows of phone systems that meet this need please mail responses to me. I will repost a summary of replies. ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Odd New Number "Recording" Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 21:25:41 GMT The other day I called a company in California. The number I had was an old one, but instead of getting the usual recording, I got a real live human who answered the phone "Number referral". Before I could say anything, she told me that the company I was calling had a new number and told me what it was. There was a little delay between the time the phone was answered and she gave me the message, about the right amount of time for somebody to check to see which line they had answered and look something up. I've never heard of such a thing before. Why a person and not just a recording? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:58:17 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: New Service Allows Same-day Activation of New Phone Number In yesterday's phone bill I received from Southern Bell was an insert describing a new service: QUICK(sm) SERVICE NOW AVAILABLE *It's the best way to get new telephone service fast. And if you call us by 3:00 p.m., we will connect you that very same day.* When you move into a previously owned home or a previously occupied apartment, plug in your telephone even before you haul the first load of boxes. That way, Southern Bell can fix you up with phone service fast. With Southern Bell's new Quick Service, when you plug in your telephone, you will immediately hear a dial tone. Then you just call the Business Office -- Monday through Friday during regular business hours -- at 780-2355, and place your order. We'll check your line for problems, issue you a phone number, and add your new address and phone number to the directory listings. *And if you call by 3:00 p.m., we'll connect your phone service on the day you call.* So your phone will be ready and ringing in your new home before you finish packing at your old address. Quick Service is available to most residence customers. We know moving can be difficult. So Southern Bell's Quick Service makes getting phone service in your new home easier and faster than ever. And that means more convenience, safety and peace of mind for you. After all, the faster you get phone service in your new location, the faster it will feel like home. So remember, always unpack your phone first. And let Southern Bell's Quick Service make your life -- and your move -- just a touch easier. If you are moving into a newly built home or apartment, it requires you to connect your service in the conventional way. This is interesting, but it raises a bunch of questions: 1) Is it possible to make any other types of calls from a "temporary dial tone" line? The number quoted above (780-BELL) is a special toll-free number dialable only from So. Bell territory. But what about local calls? 911? Operator-assisted calls? Calling card calls? 800 numbers? 2) Is the temporary line dialable from anywhere else? If so, what number is it assigned? (Presumably not the old owner's number, as that may have followed him to a new address served by the same CO.) 3) Does the temporary line accept tone dialing as well as pulse? 4) Are there any nasty surprises on your first phone bill? (E.g., "QUICK SERVICE: $5.00".) 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #201 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09640; 25 Mar 90 23:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12737; 25 Mar 90 22:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad08136; 25 Mar 90 21:00 CST Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:50:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #202 BCC: Message-ID: <9003252050.ab00476@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:50:21 CST Volume 10 : Issue 202 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ISDN Public Phones [Jim Gottlieb] Itemized Billing in the UK [Kevin Hopkins] European Telepoint [Kevin Hopkins] DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Karl Lohner] Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills [Jack Winslade] Billing Tapes and Who Gets to See Them [Richard Snider] US Sprint [Steven King] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: ISDN Public Phones Date: 23 Mar 90 06:01:13 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan The following was snagged off of a local BBS (Janis II). My comments are those [in square brackets]. Date: 03/19/90 (22:38) Number: 183 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: BOB KAWARATANI Read: HAS REPLIES Subj: PAY PHONES Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE The following article is a summary translation of an article from the March 12 evening edition of the Asahi Shinbun. I thought it might be of interest to telecommunication users. Note, I don't have any of my special dictionaries or glossaries with me so please forgive the literal translations of some of the technical terms and organization names. ******************* NTT [the telco here] has developed a public telephone for use by personal computer communications users and others. If approval from the Posts and Telecommunications Ministry is obtained, installation of 1,000 units throughout Japan is planned during FY1990. These units are part of the INS Net 64 [ISDN 2B+D] and are part of NTTs efforts to make INS [ISDN] more accessible to general users. These telephones are equipped with analog and digital jacks on the front face of the units. The analog jacks are for use by standard facsimile units and modems. In this case, the analog signals from these units are converted to digital form for transmission. The digital jack is for high speed facsimile units (G4 level units) and other digital equipment. A section manager at NTT's Public Telephone Support Headquarters stated "in the future, telephones will be miniaturized and we would like to be able to connect to IC cards and electronic notebooks". *************** I think that this really exciting news in that NTT has recognized the potential for networking and personal telecommunications. Let's hope that other countries will provide telephones with modular jacks so our laptop and notebook size computers will be able to send messages from public telephones around the world. Date: 03-22-90 (07:30) Number: 187 (Echo) To: BOB KAWARATANI Refer#: 183 From: RENE ANDERSSON Read: NO Subj: PAY PHONES Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE >I think that this really exciting news in that NTT has recognized >the potential for networking and personal telecommunications. >Let's hope that other countries will provide telephones with >modular jacks so our laptop and notebook size computers will be >able to send messages from public telephones around the world. ======================================================================= I would really like to join your enthusiasm. Unfortunately during my short week back home in Sweden I got shocked back into reality. Televerket (Sweden's NTT) insists on using an outdated jack with four big ugly protruding connectors and an even bigger and uglier stabilizing plastic device in the middle of the jack. The whole thing is about 12 - 15 times larger than a modular jack. A very sad story, not the least because the Nordic countries are really advanced when it comes to cellular phones. NMT stands for Nordic Mobile Telephone and today you can call from a mobile phone anywhere within Scandinavia except from some exceptionally remote mountain areas. The average cellular phone weighs in at around 125 grams which means that Konishiki could lose one of those mothers in his rear areas and never find it again. But when I asked a friend who works for Televerket why they don't equip the phones with an external modular jack so it would be possible to connect faxes and modems, all I got was a blank stare as if I really had turned Japanese during my sojourn here. The idea is great, but if someone doesn't try to esablish some international standards on an early stage, communications will go the same way as HDTV. Right now the Scandinavian countries are lobbying Brussels to accept NMT for all of EC. I doubt that they will succeed. Date: 03/22/90 (08:42) Number: 188 (Echo) To: BOB KAWARATANI Refer#: 183 From: NORIO NISHIYAMA Read: NO Subj: PAY PHONES Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Bob, BK> Let's hope that other countries will provide telephones with BK> modular jacks so our laptop and notebook size computers will be BK> able to send messages from public telephones around the world. And with Japanese Wor-pro. (grin) [Japanese stand-alone word processors] My most interesting experience with public telephone was a trial from the one installed in de Gaulle airport. Not 9,600 bps but 300 bps, I could send 2 messages and could receive 1. It costed 2 French franc, excluding Van and E-mail charge. Nishiyama ------------------------------ Subject: Itemized Billing in the UK Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 16:57:52 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins Itemized billing is now being introduced in the UK, albeit slowly. As phone lines are moved across to the System X (digital) exchanges BT are offering free itemized billing, though you have to request it. There is usually a six month delay between the switch to System X and the provision of itemized billing. The time lag was longer on those switched to System X a few years ago as itemized billing has only become available in the last year or so. The itemized bills show time of call, duration, number dialled and cost exclusive of VAT. The odd thing is that only calls 10 units or over are itemized (44p + 15% VAT = 50.6p), the rest are lumped into a total shown as "metered calls". Does anyone know why BT don't itemize all calls irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can provide an answer to this? Does anyone from BT read this list? +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Subject: European Telepoint Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 17:48:44 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins Computing, a UK trade magazine, reports that the UK second generation cordless telephone standard known as CT2 has been adopted by PTTs in France, West Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Finland. This follows the signing of a letter of intent between the above governments and the UK government. According to the article the UK gained the advantage on competing standards by licensing four Telepoint operators using CT2 shortly after the European Community announced its backing of CT2. Byps, a Barclays Bank / Philips / Shell Oil joint venture which operates one of the UK Telepoint networks, welcomes the move and says that it will help boost the UK market, which is expected to have 4 million Telepoint users by 1995. CT2 telephones have a range of 200 metres from the central Telepoint using low cost handsets, and has a usage density comparable to landline telephones. It is expected to become the "people's cellphone". +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 19:47 EST From: Karl Lohner Subject: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf) Carl writes: > DTMF code. For the letters other than Q and Z the first digit of the > code is the touch-tone button on which that letter appears, and the > second digit is the placement (1, 2, or 3) of the letter in that > group. For example, A is 21, B is 22, C is 23, D is 31, and so forth. > Code Character Mnemonic > 73 . PEriod > H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L . (^ = space) > 4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9 ^^----------^^-----------------+ Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same | numeric code under this system? It seems like the only flaw under an --+ otherwise quite usable system. Karl Lohner. klohner@drunivac.bitnet klohner@drew.edu [Moderator's Note: It is such a good scheme in fact that there ought to be some work-around past this one problem. P] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 00:23:40 EST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 All of this talk here about strange charges appearing on telephone bills prompted me to take a good look at mine. Sure enough, one of the itemized charges was a $.50 (per line) charge for 'extended local calling area'. I admit that I have not been paying that much attention to the specifics of the local phone rates, so I phoned the U.S. West rep, thinking that I might be paying for something that I seldom or never use. She explained that this charge is for some areas which used to be toll calls from Omaha which are now part of the local calling area . When I asked if it were optional and could I have it removed, she said it was a mandatory charge that they once had included in the line charge but due to regulations they now must itemize it . It seems that this 'extended area' includes such things as Council Bluffs (across the river in Iowa .. same metro area .. different area code from Omaha but dial 7 digits only .. been a local call as long as I can remember), a few small towns in Iowa that nobody I know ever calls, and a few outer-suburban areas of Omaha, some of which are closer to me than downtown Omaha. Strangely enough, the local phone book lists the entire area as 'your local calling area' with no reference to the fact that much of it is 'extended' for the additional charge. In Omaha, each untimed, unmeasured string to which you can tie a tin can runs about $17/mo, sans tin can, of course. Measured service is available, but they do not promote it, nor do they tell in the phone book which prefixes are how many units, etc. The local calling area is essentially a 'blob' in eastern Nebraska - western Iowa which has very few staggered local calling areas within it, making several cases where it is a toll call to call one community just down the road, but one many miles the other way is local. There was talk in a local conference about a community (Washington, Ne.) just to the north of Omaha, which is right smack dab on the line between the Omaha calling area (U.S. West) and the Blair calling area (Huntel). Some who live in Washington evidently have one service, some have the other, and some have both. There was talk of one business there that had three phones, side by side, any two of which were toll calls from either of the others. Although I am somewhat cynical about The Phone Company I must admit that the service in Omaha is the best I have ever seen. Such things as slow dial tones and reorders simply do not happen. Lately the service reps have become quite proficient at answering questions without the run-around, although they don't always tell me the answer I want. Good Day! JSW --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Subject: Billing Tapes and Who Gets to See Them Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:39:40 EST From: Richard Snider Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada I supose the rules vary as to who gets to see the contents of "Raw" billing or logging tapes becuase a long time ago, someone I knew was in trouble with the phone cops and as part of the evidence used against him was an item "DMS100 Log Information". After we got to see a copy of this we were made into believers regarding what Bell keeps laying around that their ESS churns out. I should note that this wasn't pen recorder output, that was listed later in the evidence along with the appropriate documents giving them permission to put it on the line. This brings up an interesting point in that they MUST get permission to attach a device to your line that does nothing more than record numbers that you have dialed (Along with other things I suppose). However there were no documents regarding the Logs. I suppose all you have to do is ask :-) BTW, the case was thrown out of court. Richard Snider Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider Also: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP An unbreakable tool is useful for breaking other tools. ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: US Sprint Date: 24 Mar 90 22:43:43 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill. I gather the same is true for MCI and other ld carriers. But *not* for AT&T. Why can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if they can, why don't they? And yet another Persistent Wrong Number Bozo story. This one has a twist, the "persistent bozo" is many different people who call (say, three or four calls a month) asking for a "Mr. Warber". Never heard of the guy. I figured that he'd had the phone number before it was assigned to me, so I just blew it off for a while. A little more thatn a year, actually. After a while I got suspicious, so I started questioning the callers about when they got this number. "Oh, just a few weeks ago" is the common reply. SOMEWHERE out there, Mr. Warber (if that is his name) is giving out my phone number in an effort to dodge creditors/salesmen/in-laws/whatever! Thanks buddy, I really appreciate it. (I checked; there's no "Warber" listed in the phone book...) It's only impossible until it's done. | Steve King (708) 991-8056 | ...uunet!motcid!king | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #202 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12303; 26 Mar 90 0:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24086; 25 Mar 90 23:10 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ak12737; 25 Mar 90 22:06 CST Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 21:30:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #203 BCC: Message-ID: <9003252130.ab21361@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Mar 90 21:30:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 203 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson German Cellular Experience [John R. Covert] Reasons For Some Repetitive Wrong Numbers [Mark James] From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [Bob Mosley III] Electronic Dialing of a Cellular Telephone [Scott Novell] Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line [Stuart Lynne] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 22:28:42 PST From: "John R. Covert 23-Mar-1990 1558" Subject: German Cellular Experience Just returned from ten days in Germany, where I rented an AEG portable phone. Weight was 570g; dimensions were 19.5 x 8 x 3.4 cm plus the 16.3 cm antenna. The rates from Sixt/Budget are DM 19 per day, DM 95 per week, and DM 295 per month. (No associated car rental required.) Budget charges DM 0.80 for each DM 0.23 unit. Thus I didn't use it for very many outgoing calls, but did receive a significant number of incoming calls. In Germany, incoming calls are charged to the caller; all cellular phone numbers nationwide are "0161+7D". They can be called from the U.S. on AT&T (no extra charge over the normal international charge) but cannot be called on Sprint, MCI, or ITT. They can also be called from the U.K. on either BT or Mercury. At certain times of the day, it's cheaper to call a German cellular phone from the U.S. or the U.K. than from within Germany. With longer term rentals, the monthly rental rates are further reduced, and you may also have your own account with the Bundespost. Bundespost monthly rates are DM 120 ($70). Of course, then you only pay DM 0.23 per unit. Units are charged every 8 seconds peak and 20 seconds off-peak for all domestic calls. International calls are charged standard German rates (in units) plus an airtime surcharge of one unit every 16 seconds peak or 40 seconds off-peak. This makes the Bundespost per minute rates roughly $1.00/minute peak (including the landline portion, which in Germany is about $0.70/minute peak for anything over 60 miles) and about $0.41 off-peak. Budget marks this up to $3.48 peak and $1.41 off-peak. One short call to the U.S. (about 2.5 minutes at 11PM) cranked up 44 units, or almost $21 at Budget's rates. Coverage is quite poor. There are typically cell-sites only on the ~200 meter regional TV towers, thus there may only be one cell site attempting to cover an entire large city. Coverage in downtown areas was not good due to shadows from buildings. Even where there was good coverage, I observed a significant amount of unexplained fading. For example, sitting in the restaurant of my hotel, I could see the tower, and the signal strength meter would sit at full strength. But periodically, with the phone sitting still, the signal would fade down to nothing and the no-service indicator would come on. Fifteen seconds later, the phone would beep, indicating that it was back in service. A dealer in W|rzburg told me that he doesn't sell portables due to the poor coverage in the area. He claims the system is a 450 MHz system with a maximum channel capacity of 200 (doesn't agree with the 290 mentioned by a friend who asked about the phones at a different store) Price for portables is nearly $5000; price for car phones is about $3500. W|rzburg has only 24 channels for an area of roughly 3000 square miles with a population of somewhere between a quarter and half a million. At those rates and with those prices, it's no wonder there are not a lot of customers and that there is poor coverage. I also had coverage difficulty in the N|rnberg/F|rth area. When I could see the TV tower ten miles away, the phone worked. If it was behind a hill or building, the phone didn't work. Likewise in Berlin. Right on the Kudamm the signal was almost non-existent. The phone did not work inside any building in the main business district, but it did work from atop the Wall near the Brandenburg Gate. I did not attempt to take the phone into East Berlin, although the next day when I returned the phone to Budget, I was told that (contrary to the official rules) their customers had been able to bring the phones in as long as they had the rental contract with them. I wouldn't recommend trying it though -- as a foreigner, I wasn't allowed to bring a bicycle into East Berlin last Sunday. When flying from N|rnberg to Berlin, the airport security folks insisted that I place the phone in my checked luggage, not in my carry-on bag. No suggestions like "what if I put the batteries in my checked luggage, so I can't turn the phone on" worked, and the airline made me sign a statement that absolved them of responsibility for loss or damage to the phone. /john ------------------------------ From: Mark James Subject: Reasons For Some Repetitive Wrong Numbers Date: 24 Mar 90 16:29:13 GMT Reply-To: mark@bdblues.altair.fr Organization: GIP ALTAIR,c/o INRIA, Rocquencourt, FRANCE There's been some discussion about `persistent wrong number bozos', and I've certainly had my share of them. I have kept track of some of the reasons for repeated wrong numbers, and some of them are not completely the bozo's fault. Sometimes it's hardware. Right now we have a number that's not far from, but not really close to, that of the local cinema, ending in 3996 instead of 3963. But the frequency of calls that we got asking when the Dead Poets Society was showing was so high that I took to asking people what they were trying to do, and what equipment they had. It appears that the 9 bounces on some Matra touch-tone phones, so that people actually dial 39963; the switching system ignores the last 3 and sends the suckers to us. Sometimes it's the stupidity of the area code set-up. Here in France, everyone has eight-digit numbers, and there are only two area codes: the Paris region (area code 1) and everywhere else (*no* area code). Within your area, you just dial an eight-digit number. To call from Paris to the provinces, you dial 16, wait for a different dial tone, then dial eight digits; and to call from the provinces to Paris, you have to dial 16, wait for the trunk dial tone, then 1 + eight digits. With such a mess, you can imagine the number of Parisians who forget the 16, or foreigners who forget the 1 (or who mistakenly put it in, never having dialed a non-Parisian French number before). When you ask them what number they are dialing, it's the correct one, but the person they really want is a woman named Liliane who lives in Orleans or someplace, who has our number in the other zone, and about whom we already know about half of the story of her life. And I wonder what *she* thinks about the people who keep calling her number, and who might not even speak French. Sometimes, though, it's just the bozo. Even here, however, you can notice some patterns, and take measures accordingly. For example, a person's bozoicity seems to rise with age, and the increase becomes exponential somewhere around age 90. Now these gentle folk have trouble with big digits, like 8 and 9; also, they are just the kind of people who like to garden. So when we discovered some years ago that our new telephone number was 498-896, and that the number for the Milford Garden Centre was 498-986 (this was New Zealand, where they still have step-by-step switches and variable-length phone numbers even in the same city), we should have seen what was coming. We actually got to know several of the repeaters by voice; each had a preferred day of the week to call, presumably when the pension check arrived. Most were polite and even embarrassed with their repeating fumble-fingers, but some -- those who liked early Saturday and Sunday morning -- became a bit pesty after a while. So we took to answering them, "No, I'm fresh out of bigonias. By the way, we're moving next week, and you might like to note our new phone number", and giving them the number of a competitor. Worked like a charm, the bozos. ### T. Mark James #### opinions, errors etc are my own ### ### mark@bdblues.altair.fr #### "I'm stupid enough to try anything ### +33 (1) 39 63 53 93 #### once." -- The `Bag Man' ################################ Univ. of Washington, 1968 ------------------------------ From: Bob Mosley III Subject: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Date: 24 Mar 90 20:05:53 GMT Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX [note: this reposting is from alt.cosuard, a newsgroup that is part of a multi-net link established by members of COSUARD to assist in the fight against SWB over BBS rate hikes. This post is also being reposted to alt.bbs as a matter of courtesy.] Date: 23-Mar-90 00:22 From: William Degnan To: All Subj: The PUC On March 9, 1990, Reginald Hirsch and Ed Hopper met with John Costello and Rick Guzman of the Office of the General Counsel of the Texas PUC. First, some background: A few weeks ago, it became obvious that Southwestern Bell could end the 8387 case by stating that it would enact a new BBS policy. This policy would hold that a BBS that was restricted to one line and that did not charge a fee for access would be entitled to residential rates. This proposed description would cover all four BBSs involved in the 8387 case. As a result, by unilateral action, Southwestern Bell could get out of the 8387 case. With this in mind, the COSUARD board agreed to support a decision to settle on the above terms. It was the boards feeling that further dialog with Southwestern Bell would have some potential to expand the line limitation to some number above one line in the future. Additionally, the board felt that an agreement could be reached with Southwestern Bell so that the settlement could be considered a "floor" on BBS regulation. The vast majority of BBSs, which fall in the one line/no forced charge category, would be thus protected. It was not a perfect settlement, but an acceptable one. The board made plans to announce this to the membership and the public. Unfortunately, there was a fly in the ointment. Guzman and Costello, who represent the General Counsel before the PUC and are the third side in the case, did not accept the Southwestern Bell proposal. They indicated, instead, that another arrangement should be used. This would be to allow a BBS to have up to three lines but the BBS could not accept contributions. Neither Hirsch nor Hopper favored that arrangement. While it did help a few boards, a far larger number would be hurt because they could no longer ask their callers for voluntary help on the tremendous expense involved in the operation of a BBS. The meeting on March 9 was devoted to this potential settlement. Costello stated that he could not support any arrangement in which a sysop received money, under any terms, from users. Hopper replied that if that was the case, why should a sysop accept any line quantity limitation whatsoever? No other residential customer must accept a limit on the number of lines installed on his premise. In addition, the high expense of multiline BBS operation is such that most multi-line systems, particularly those at three lines or greater, must assess fees in order to cover extensive costs. Therefore, the "right" to multiple lines is an empty right with the inability of sysops to seek assistance on costs. Hopper pointed out that telephone policy has always taken into account the social value of price considerations. By protecting BBSs with residential rates, a social good is performed. Sysops include among their numbers children, the disabled, veterans and, of course, computer hobbyists who are extending the spirit of innovation which created the American Dream. Fostering BBS systems is in the public interest. Costello replied that he could not take such external matters into consideration. There was a great deal of discussion about telephone construction costs and the cost of providing "excessive" numbers of phone lines in residences. Hopper stated that if, in fact, there is documented proof that installation of second, third or more phone lines causes extensive costs, such costs should be recovered by uniform increases in charges that are applied to all residential customers who order extra lines. Hopper stated, "Do not pick on sysops by misclassifying a BBS to business rates." Further, Hopper and Hirsch pointed out that these construction costs are the same type of "external matter" that Mr. Costello refused to consider a moment earlier. Again, the issue of "Why accept a line limit if we can't take donations?" was pressed. "What's in it for us?" Costello's response was that if the BBS community did not agree to his plan, he would support the original Southwestern Bell position that all BBSs, by offering a "service to the public" were businesses. The issue of money would be irrelevant. Once a BBS is turned on, before the first dime of contributions is made, the BBS would be a business, paying business rates. Hirsch stated he was "flabbergasted" to hear the PUC take such a position. After the meeting, Southwestern Bell indicated that it no longer was willing to accept the one line with donations formula and was now more inclined to the PUC formula. The issue that COSUARD now seeks your input on is this: Is the PUC "3 Lines/No Donations" proposal acceptable or not? It is the feeling of Messrs. Hirsch and Hopper that it is not. However, public input from the BBS community is critical on this issue. A real danger exists that ALL BBSs could be assessed business rates. Your input is needed. Please respond now. Ed Hopper-President-COSUARD ...this situation is a bloody mess now, eh? OM ------------------------------ From: Scott Novell Subject: Electronic Dialing of a Cellular Telephone Date: 25 Mar 90 01:16:02 GMT Reply-To: Scott Novell Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Here is the question: I have an electronic monitoring system which is able to place calls through a normal phone by just being plugged in (by a standard phone cord) to the handset port on the base of a normal (non-cellular) phone. I recently bought a cellular phone in which I set up the same way but the cellular phone doesn't recognize or react to my monitoring systems attempts at calling out. On the cellular phone's handset (when plugged in), it requires you to hit a "send" button after you type in the number. I have also tried buying a Radio Shack type adapter which is designed to let your fax machine dial through a cellular phone, but that does not work for my Fax machine or my monitoring system. Any help would be appreciated. Please respond by email since I do not read any of these newsgroups I am posting this to. snovell@umd5.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: Stuart Lynne Subject: Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 22:57:55 PST >apparently prefer to use it. When I had my PBX here, 81 and 82 would >do exactly what yours is doing: select individual outgoing trunks. If >the selection was busy then it did not hunt. However dialing 9 >selected from either open trunk. PT] This is really strange ! My cohort who is also using a Panasonic 308 says his does exactly that... Hm, mine definitely doesn't. The only difference is that his was purchased from the US. Mine in Canada. Looks like the restriction is a Canadian one (the person must select the outside line, the pbx can't do it automatically). We'll investigate further. It may be different ROM's or jumper setting. In any case my original suggestion stands. PBX's should be programmed to accept 911, find an outside line (dumping someone else if necessary) and then redial 911, and connect the handset. If we are going to have an emergency number it should work *everywhere*, consistently. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) [Moderator's Note: Mine had dip switches inside the unit which either allowed or disallowed 9. If 9 was allowed, then 81 was selected as the first choice, and 82 was selected when 81 was busy. Another dip switch disallowed (or allowed) 9 calls to overflow to 82. That is, you could force 9 calls to 81 only, returning NC condition to the caller if 81 was in use. This still allowed direct connection to 82 by knowledgeable users. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #203 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18301; 26 Mar 90 3:29 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26536; 26 Mar 90 1:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae26616; 26 Mar 90 0:10 CST Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 23:11:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #204 BCC: Message-ID: <9003252311.ab24387@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Mar 90 23:10:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 204 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [W. H. Sohl] Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [W. H. Sohl] Re: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? [Marvin Sirbu] Re: Data Ports at Airports [Andy Behrens] Re: Fictitious Listings With NETel [Mike Perka] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [David Tamkin] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Lawrence M. Geary] Re: Enhanced 911 [Tad Cook] Re: Enhanced 911 [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Bill Cerny] Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Daniel M. Rosenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "W. H. Sohl" Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 23 Mar 90 16:17:42 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ > 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. I seem to recall that here in New Jersey, you can choose to have a special meter installed which keeps track of electricity used on a time of day basis. The purpose is to encourage residents to shift their usage to the evening and night hours when capacity is usually always readily available. There was, I guess, two sets of meter readings. One set that tracked usage between 8am and 5pm (my best guess at the times) and another that kept track for the remaining (off peak) hours. I have no idea as to what type of internal clock or tracking mechanism was used. I also don't know if this type of meter and charging is still an option. Presumably there'd have to be an internal battery to keep the clock running during power outages (a not altogether unusual situation in NJ or anywhere else). Bill Sohl, Bellcore bellcore!pyuxe!whs70 [Moderator's Note: Chicago's Commonwealth Edison has a similar rate structure for certain kinds of business places and large older residential hotels using a common meter for the entire building. In addition to the measurement of electrical consumption, there is also a measurement of 'demand', or amount of current pulled at any given time. Provided you stay below a certain demand level the rate is lower. A 'finger' on the meter is pulled upward as more current is demanded, and the finger stays locked at its highest position until the meter reader resets it on his/her next visit. PT] ------------------------------ From: "W. H. Sohl" Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees Date: 23 Mar 90 17:20:16 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <5424@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes: > I've been wondering for some time about the 900 numbers which > advertise a "TV sports trivia game show" (and similar programs for > other subjects). You can win $100 just by making a telephone call, > but of course, it's a 900 number and you're billed for the call. Is > this really legal? I have the same thought, especially after seeing what seems to me to be a lottery using 900 numbers on the MTV (Music Cable Channel) just the other day. The scheme works as follows: You call the 900 number listed and give your name and address and which is then put into the "pot or barrel" for a drawing worth $25,000. There was a definete charge ($2 I think) announced with making the 900 call. I saw the ad recently, I think on Sunday 3/18. Well, any legal opinions out there? Isn't this nothing more than a lottery using a 900 number as the method of selling chances? Bill Sohl bellcore!pyuxe!whs70 All disclaimers apply! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 16:59:18 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? Our 1AESS - based Centrex has provided camp-on-busy to all user lines for some time. However, we pay extra for the service. Unless your Centrex is provided on a Crossbar, you should be able to order camp-on-busy. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ From: Andy Behrens Subject: Re: Data Ports at Airports Date: 24 Mar 90 23:16:13 GMT Reply-To: andyb@coat.com Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse In article <5531@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl (woody) writes: > Now, if they could have payphones with keyboards and screens, so that > Usenet or BBSes could be dialed on the run ... then again, the telcos > might give us the nightmare of having it COCOT-style. I saw such a beast in the lobby of the Sheraton hotel in Springfield, Mass. It had menu options for connecting to various public networks (Telenet, Compuserve, etc), calling your own computer -- which they called "electronic mail system" --, and sending Fax messages. I don't think it had direct connections to any of the data networks; probably it was programmed to dial up the nearest access numbers. You had to pay for any long distance calls, plus a hefty per-minute surcharge for the use of the terminal. Live justly, love gently, walk humbly. Andy Behrens andyb@coat.com uucp: {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb RFD 1, Box 116, East Thetford, Vt. 05043 (802) 649-1258 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 17:30:01 EST From: Mike Perka Subject: Re: Fictitious Listings With NETel Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va. In article <5517@accuvax.nwu.edu> Hagbard Celine writes: > I'm adding another line in my house. I want to list the number >under a fictitious name, but have it billed to my real name and >address (of course.) I DO NOT want the number non-published, but I DO >NOT want it under my name. > I talked to a woman at NETel, and then her supervisor, and was told >that "we don't allow things like that." Do I have any recourse? Yes. One of the better methods for accomplishing this feat is to tell your service representative that you'd like your phone listed under your "religious" name. You'll be hard pressed to find a telco employee who will give you any grief with this -- if you do, simply ask for their supervisor. One problem with the fictitious roommate ploy (as suggested by the moderator) is some companies will demand credit information on the 'roommate'. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:08:40 CST Carl, who gave no surname, wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 197: | For the letters other than Q and Z the first digit of the | code is the touch-tone button on which that letter appears, and the | second digit is the placement (1, 2, or 3) of the letter in that | group. For example, A is 21, B is 22, C is 23, D is 31, and so forth. | Q is 70 and Z is 90. The digits 0-9 are 00-09 respectively. The | non-alphanumeric characters are composed of codes which have mnemonic | two-letter combinations [such as] | Code Character Mnemonic | 25 (space) BLank | 26 , COmma | 39 ! EXclamation point | 73 . PEriod | 78 ? QUestion mark (Q = 7) That would mean period and S have the same code. It can't be. There are just too many words, such as plurals of nouns and third-person singulars of verbs, that consist of another legitimate word plus the letter S. David W. Tamkin dattier@point.UUCP ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 P. O. Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 All other point users disagree. [Moderator's Note: This same point was raised in the last issue. Since then I have thought about it and it occurs to me you could probably eliminate the exclamation point and use 39 for the period instead. PT] ------------------------------ From: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: 24 Mar 90 15:24:01 GMT Reply-To: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary,ho,) In article <5523@accuvax.nwu.edu> isjjgcd@prism.gatech.edu (Carl) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 197, Message 7 of 10 > I'm surprised no one has mentioned this scheme for sending >alphanumerics and punctuation via DTMF. I've seen it used on at least This is the same system used by some brokerage firms which offer automated stock quote information over the phone. You type the stock symbol using the coding system described, and end with a #. --Larry: 74017.3065@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 24 Mar 90 08:37:05 GMT Organization: very little I was interested in Gordon Letwin's (of Microsoft...yeah, he is the "architect" of OS/2) comment about 911, where he said "don't wait for an emergency....to dial 911". Gordon lives in the Seattle area, and around here you cannot call the cops to report ANYTHING without dialing 911. Try to find a number in the Seattle phone book to report a parking problem ... it says "dial 911." This has some advantages though ... it gives everyone a single point of contact (with ALI), and it also keeps the decision making process on what is and isn't an emergency at the professional level. That way you don't have civilians like me not calling 911 to report a stalled truck on the freeway because "911 is for REAL emergencies", and then it turns it is a PROPANE truck. Did anyone see that goofy letter in Dear Abby a few weeks back from the volunteer fireman who admonished people to teach their kids to dial 9-1-1, rather than 911 or 9-11, because "there is no eleven on the dial"? The guy even claimed that "there are court cases" because of this confusion, where someone panicked because they couldn't find the 11 on the dial and let the house burn down! This old story is even in one of Jan Brunvand's books about "Urban Legends", and I keep seeing it popping up again and again ... even in the APCO (Assoc of Police Comm Officers) Bulletin! 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: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 24 Mar 90 19:34:44 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > I noted the :-) above, so I'm not sure how anti-911 you or anyone >else is. My point was, that since we all know that government funds come from a very large grove of money trees being cultivated in Nebraska, the government should spent all it can on shiny, new, and most of all, expensive things without any thought that these funds could be better used. (After all, the government only has to plant a few more of these money trees. :-) ) For example, the federal government recently purchased a new phone system which will save it $200 million a year. And since this new phone system only cost $25 billion the payback period is only a mere ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE YEARS. BTW, could you help get the government to install under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires (my six-year-old is too young to help me change tires). And think of all the lives that would be saved--I estimate it would only cost $20 million per saved life and only cost $800 per person -- and think of the jobs this would create. :-) ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Date: 24 Mar 90 15:04:53 GMT In article <5518@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >Every now and then, someone will mention , in the course of their >posting on some subject or another, that their exchange's CO has a "#4 >ESS" or a "#3 ESS". How do they know that? Knowledge of switching systems is folklore in many "phone klatches," where often the conversation starts, "Remember that _awful_ 1EAX that GTE put in the Slater Office..." ;-) Telcos distribute various literature describing their local switching network topology; Pacific*Bell once distributed this as a Lotus 123 spreadsheet. The FCC-mandated ONA filings for each RBOC contain an appendix with switching system information (US West's filing even includes analog to digital cutover dates). This summer the RBOCs will furnish a database of their wirecenters and switching systems, per the format specified by the FCC. Should become a popular FTP object. ;-) >As Mark asks, is there a special test number you dial that tells you >the equipment and software version? In SoCal, dial NXX-1NXX and compare the tone to "known" references (i.e., 619-282-1282 is a 1AESS tone, 619-461-1461 is #5 Crowbar in San Diego county). This won't tell you the generic, and it's not implemented in a standard fashion on 5ESS and DMS switches. >If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to >belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken... Why not ask the telco? Pacific*Bell customer reps can tell you whether a prefix is 1AESS, 5ESS, DMS, or electro-mechanical. They don't know the software generic, but it's common knowledge in SoCal that the 5ESS switches are all 5E3.2 or later (5E4.2 or 5E5 in ISDN areas), almost all 1AESS switches are 1AE10 (just waiting for CCS7), and the DMS switches are all different. ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 [Moderator's Note: The same numbers are assigned here on most prefixes for something or another. For example, 338-1338, 248-1248, 643-1643 and 236-1236 always return a busy signal. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? Date: 22 Mar 90 20:38:38 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. pf@islington-terrace.csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) writes: > In addition to all the changeover annoyance, the new system has a >real human-factors botch: no tones are generated at the phone when >dialing. Tones are generated after the call connects, but only for a >fixed, short duration, so any remote device that needs long tones >(like many answering machines) is difficult or impossible to access. >How could Northern Telecom let such a stupid mistake out the door? While Stanford's DMS-100 may not be exactly the same as the one TI is getting, here is how ours seems to work. It supports both fancy phones and POTS-like lines. The fancy type phones do not generate touch tones when dialing, but the tones get sent out directly from the switch (if they are indeed needed at all, I guess). But, once your call is completed, the buttons on your phone will send a signal down to the switch that they are being pressed, and the switch responds by generating an audible, fixed length corresponding DTMF tone. The obvious advantage: you can use the access features on answering machines, second dial tone services and whatnot. The obvious disadvantages: on phones without the LCD display, you don't get feedback of what you're dialing, so mistakes happen without your always knowing it, and, crufty answering machines like mine that need 10 second long tones don't always respond to the half second ones generated at the DMS-100 switch, as you mentioned. # Daniel M. Rosenberg // Stanford CSLI // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's. # dmr@csli.stanford.edu // decwrl!csli!dmr // dmr%csli@stanford.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #204 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23920; 26 Mar 90 9:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31901; 26 Mar 90 2:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26536; 26 Mar 90 1:15 CST Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 0:23:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #205 BCC: Message-ID: <9003260023.ab04461@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Mar 90 00:23:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 205 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Tad Cook] Re: 911 and Home PBX's [Stuart Lynne] Re: Need Phone System Information [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: How to Identify Your CO Equipment [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Operator Knows What? [Bob Stratton] Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller [Bob Stratton] Re: Choke Lines [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Phone Harassment [Brandon S. Allbery] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears Date: 24 Mar 90 21:15:38 GMT Organization: very little Steve Elias posted a note about his mother and how she speaks so loudly on the phone. A few years ago at work we had someone there with a very LOUD telephone presence. For laughs, I used to hold the receiver in my lap, speak loudly in it's direction, and it made a very effective speakerphone; no problem hearing her at all, and it made my co-workers crack up! 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: 911 and Home PBX's Date: 24 Mar 90 23:45:09 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <5571@accuvax.nwu.edu> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: }I'm waiting for the first time someone in California (for example, any }state with strong consumer laws and lot's of lawyers will do) to have }some serious loss due to a delay from not being able to dial 911 }directly from one of these phones and sue everyone in sight (owner of }phone, telephone company, manufacturer of switch etc). }[Moderator's Note: Who would they sue, the installer and owner of the }system? This is not a case where you are at the mercy of some place }which chooses to use the system; you bought it, installed it and I would suggest that if the people who design and build the product specifically design something that is unsafe to use due to the pressure of a third party (Telco's) that both might be opening themselves to a lawsuit. Especially if it can be shown that there are only non-technical reasons for the way that it is designed. And that all competing products are the same thereby limiting your choice to ones all have the same problems. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Need Phone System Information Reply-To: Macy Hallock Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 03:43:36 GMT In article <5577@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Duane L. Christensen" writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 201, Message 10 of 12 >I am writing this request for software/hardware for a friend. She is >looking for a "Call Accounting Package" for a law firm. >They currently have a system that does this, but it only allows a >limited number of codes to charge to (they need to charge to 3000+ >different codes), and the attorneys have to go through some convoluted >steps to enter the account codes. I'm a bit confused by your posting. Are you in need of info on replacing the phone system or the call accounting package? Generally speaking, most call accounting systems will sort out the call by whatever account number they get from the phone system. I have encountered several phone systems that would not set up for "forced account entry" (and the users would not remember to voluntarily enter the codes). If you need a better call accounting package, look into the Tel-Sense PC by Tel Electronics in American Fork, UT. Its a self contained card that goes into a PC and links to the phone system. Unlike all other PC based systems, this uses no CPU power from the PC until its time to run the reports. The report info can be set up for DBase type files, too. (FoXBase is the engine for the report generator) Highly recommended. I have sold several of these where other people's units would not do the job. If the phone system is the problem, that's more difficult. Call accounting systems cannot make phone systems work differently. However I have used Mitel Smart One dialers in some cases to solve situations just like this (law firm billing troubles). I can give you more details (and a reference) on request, just 'cause you're a Usenet/Digest reader (all others $100 per hour, please! :) I got rent to pay, too) This is not an ideal solution, but carefully applied can work well. Disclaimer: I sell this stuff and I'm good at it, too! But I don't get commissions for the stuff I give advice about in the Digest (Nuts!) I guess I'll always be an engineer at heart... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 17:31:30 PST From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <5518@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's equipment?" >[...] >If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to >belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken... At the risk of being attacked, I'll say "you ask the telco." The secret is knowing who to ask. When I needed precise detail about the call waiting tone I get (so that I could rig some equipment to recognize it), I went 'round and 'round, until I finally got it right. Don't call your business office, don't call special services, don't call billing. Call repair. Here in San Francisco, repair is reached by dialing 611, which puts you through to the CO directly. The person who answered the phone was not knowledgable at all, but when I gave her questions clear enough for her to write down ("how long, in milliseconds, is a call waiting tone?") and suggested that someone there would know the answer (which, I am told, varies according to the type of equipment), she said she would pass the questions along and call me back. Sure enough, about an hour later, she called back with exactly the information I requested. For best results call during business hours. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat Mar 24 10:36:19 1990 From: Macy Hallock, Jr. Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5525@accuvax.nwu.edu> Scott Green writes: Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 197, Message 9 of 10 >OK, travelers, we've read about AOS's, exorbitant surcharges levied by >hotels, blocked access to LD carriers, etc. I am in the dubious >position of managing one of those "hospitality" PBX's, and let me >first state that our 1+ carrier is Sprint, and 0+ is AT&T. However, >we do surcharge many calls. >My question to all of you is, "What's Fair?" OK, here's what we suggest to our hotel/motel clients (we sell/install/ service phone systems, among other things ...) "Premium" pricing: Local calls: $ .25 (same cost as pay phones in Ohio) (Actual Ohio Bell cost to hotel $.09/call + $40./mo. per trunk) 800 and 950 calls: $ .25 1+ calls: +20% over ATT MTS (non-discounted 1+ rates) (Actual cost to hotel is usually a Sprint or Litel plan for mid-size businesses ... usually averages around 15% below ATT MTS) Note: Since Ohio Bell will not give answer supervsion, we suggest 35 second grace period be used AND this be noted on the room phone. Very little apparent abuse seems to occur according to our audits. 0+ calls: Pick your AOS ... and rates ... (Ugh!) "Aggressive" pricing: Local calls: $ .20 (idea is to encourage room phone use over pay phone) (If room guest is a member of frequent user club, no charge) 800 and 950 calls: No Charge 1+ calls: $.50 + ATT MTS (Idea is to be cheaper than pay phone again..) (Of course the hotel cost is still aroung -15% off MTS) (Some chains have negotiated large discounts on 1+ calling) 0+ calls: Go straight to ATT. If hotel is a member of a large group, (ATT will pay commissions on 0+ e.g. Holiday Inns, Rodeway, etc.) The biggest travesty here is ATT will not pay 0+ commissions at anything approaching reasonable levels unless you negotiate a REALLY BIG contract; like a chain-wide contract. This leaves the independants out in the cold. The effect is to encourage independants (who are cash starved anyway) to use slimy AOS's. This same problem occurs with the paystations in the lobby. At present, our two biggest technical problems with hotel/motel accounts are: - Older software cannot deal with 10XXX dialing. Most generics block 00 as well. At least one generic I have seen allows 10XXX without proper billing and capture. The property owners do not understand why upgrading the software costs $6000. and will not do it...they just keep yelling at us about it. - International calling without use of a credit card. Most PBX trunks are set up with the telco to prohibit billback of 0+ calls to the rooms (too much fraud and to encourage 1+) Some guests, mainly those from overseas, do not have calling cards. 011+ calls are considered as 0+ operator assisted calls and get blocked. Some hotel/motel SMDR billing systems also drop all billing on all 0+ calls. We advise the front desk be prepared to dial these calls (on a time and charges basis) these guests. Our biggest service problem is poor training and high turnover of front desk personnel. We cannot afford to send a trainer to the site every four weeks to train ... and most properties do not want to buy service contracts (and bitch about the service bill when our techs fix the messes their maintenance people make when the try to wire up their own phone jacks.) Low cost residence hotels are a another story. The guests will try anything to beat the system, and the owners seem to be willing to try almost anything to get a buck out of the guests. Any other secrets of the industry I should give away? Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Subject: Re: Operator Knows What? Date: 25 Mar 90 10:55:08 GMT In article <4996@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > 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). It's my _current_ experience that new bogus third-party coin stations in the Washington, DC area have cheesy routing tables that STILL don't know what a N0X/N1X exchange is! Having tried to reach the bogus third-party-coin-phone-operator when I noticed this, it became obvious that they knew even less about these exchanges than the phone did. Bob Stratton | UUCP: strat@cup.portal.com, strat@well.sf.ca.us Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32 Delphi: RJSIII Prodigy: WHMD84A Alexandria, VA | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.) 703.591.7101 (Office) ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Date: 25 Mar 90 10:09:01 GMT Having read some of their trade journals, I can tell you that collection agencies are one of the most common culprits for calling a number to death in the face of evidence that the desired party isn't there. These guys have "procedures" codified, that, to put it nicely, are belligerent. They operate on the assumption that any lead is a correct lead. Needless to say, they are horrible on the phone! I have had a few trying to get someone who may have had my phone number around 6 years ago! Bob Stratton | UUCP: strat@cup.portal.com, strat@well.sf.ca.us Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32 Delphi: RJSIII Prodigy: WHMD84A Alexandria, VA | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.) 703.591.7101 (Office) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat Mar 24 10:44:16 1990 Subject: Re: Choke Lines Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5555@accuvax.nwu.edu>: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 199, Message 6 of 9 >Could someone tell a novice user what exactly a "choke line" is? Its one of those $10 per call 900 numbers: When you get the bill, you choke. Sorry ... couldn't resist a little telecom humor about one of my favorite topics... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: "Brandon S. Allbery" Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" Organization: Telotech, Inc. Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 19:09:42 GMT As quoted from <5553@accuvax.nwu.edu> by wilson@ccop1.ocpt.ccur.com: | In article <5427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) writes: | > after reaching our answering machine, which stated "You have reached | > the Seaman residence..." | From a crime prevention point you should not have your last name on | your mailbox, front door or answering machine. All of these make it | that much easier for a burgular to determine if anyone is home. | My answering machine says "Hi this is Gary. I can't answer the phone | right now but ", etc. Mine goes one better: the *only* identification is my phone number, unless you want to match my voice. -=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=- ** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} ** Help stamp out SQL in your lifetime. [Moderator's Note: How about one that is on the same voicemail service I use (Centel, Des Plaines, IL)? The number is answered, "After you hear the tone, leave your message." Then the voicemail lady's default, "You may start your message now." . That's it. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #205 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24192; 26 Mar 90 9:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03678; 26 Mar 90 3:23 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31901; 26 Mar 90 2:19 CST Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 1:57:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #206 BCC: Message-ID: <9003260157.ab30543@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:57:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 206 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Tad Cook] Re: Switch Two Devices By Ring [Tad Cook] Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? [Dave Mc Mahan] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Rob Gutierrez] Re: Quick Service [Mark Earle] Re: Skypager [Jeffrey J. Carpenter] Re: Choke Lines [Tad Cook] Re: Choke Lines [John Boteler] Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable Company [Bob Stratton] Cordless Phone Range [Charles he Hemstreet] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" Phones Date: 25 Mar 90 23:05:57 GMT Organization: very little Brad Isley mentioned that leaving a cordless handset in the base violated Nicad "long life rules". What rule is this? When the battery is charged, the "resistance" of the battery goes up, so current goes down, and in a well designed charging circuit, there should be no problems with over-charging when a trickle of current is left on the battery. Perhaps the "rule" was the myth about deep-discharging Nicads to prevent a so-called "memory" effect? Deep discharging nicads beyond a certain point (like if you leave the handset out of the base for a long time, until is "dies") DOES shorten the life of a nicad, but contrary to popular legend, repeated short charge-discharge cycles is NOT bad for Nicads. 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: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring? Date: 25 Mar 90 23:17:39 GMT Organization: very little John Levine asked about using distinctive ringing (two phone numbers assigned to one line) to distinguish Fax from voice calls before the call is answered. There are several devices out that do this. One is the Auto-Line, made by ITS of New York. They even have one with the ability to detect several ringing cadences, so that you can swtich between modem, fax and voice on the same line. 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: "Brandon S. Allbery" Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" Organization: Telotech, Inc. Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:02:07 GMT As quoted from <5528@accuvax.nwu.edu> by Schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com: +--------------- | For those of you who passed this stressful test on the many uses of | WD40 and won an hour of free calling on U.S. Sprint: +--------------- For those interested in such shenanigans: U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur Radio Assoc. Hamfest today. I didn't get any information (or a card); I have an MCI card, but don't use it often --- I make very few long distance calls. But I don't think it was limited in any way. I was rather surprised; you'd think they'd be just a *little* more careful about who they give cards to than just offering them to any passers-by. (The 'Fest was open to the public, so they can't assume all that much about the people there.) Is this a common practice, with U.S. Sprint or others? (I saw an MCI rep there as well, but *she* wasn't handing out cards.) -=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=- ** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} ** Help stamp out SQL in your lifetime. [Moderator's Note: I'll tell you why I think Sprint is so free with their calling cards. They have no compunction against cancelling them as rapidly and with the same ease with which they start them. Consider the articles in the past in the Digest where someone did not use the Sprint card for several months, then used it several times from different locatons over two or three days. Presto, they go to use it again and Sprint has cancelled it, claiming they thought there was fraudulent usage going on. No matter they leave someone stranded at a payphone in some remote town; they have their procedures and policies, you know. What do you want to bet we who got the WD-40 cards have to 'remind them' to issue us our five bucks credit for 'one hour of free calling' once the third billing cycle passes without it? PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? Date: 26 Mar 90 03:36:40 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <5534@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) writes: > | I got one of these on my cellular phone the other night on the way > | back from a customer site. Talk about sleazy! There was absolutely > | no way to identify the caller without calling the 900 number. And I > | had to pay airtime, too, 'cause I answered the call. > | They were obviously power dialing the entire 216-389-xxxx cellular > | exchange, and judging by the time, intentionally.... > What a great argument in favor of Caller ID on cellular phones; if you > don't recognize the calling number, or if it is blocked, let it get > forwarded on no answer to an answering machine or voice mail. I agree that Caller ID should be available from cellular phones, but what is to keep someone that is purposely power-dialing the cellular exchange from not just doing it via a new number created specially for that purpose? If you block his old one, how do you find his new number until it is too late? If they want to get you, they will. -dave ------------------------------ From: Rob Gutierrez Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Date: 26 Mar 90 05:58:47 GMT Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > In Telecom Digest #184, Mark Earle wrote: > >Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features > >Which features are dependant on switch level (7ESS for the "good" > >ones?) How do I find out which level is installed here? Is there a > >requestable listing (Bellcore?) or a code/number one can use to > >interrogate the servicing CO that gives me, the subscriber, a way to > >find out what I have serving me...? > What he is asking is something I have been wondering for years, and > meant to ask on the list several times, and just never did. > If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to > belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken... Well, you could say that I *did* ask the telco at MCI... ...but somebody else did, and mixed it in with our V/H database. There was an option on one of MCI's databases to call up V/H coordinates, and a sub-option to get specific info on a C.O. One of those options included what type of switch it was. That's how I got to find out that my house was a 1AESS, my work was a 5ESS, and my fathers place was a DMS-100. That's about all I ever looked up, though. P.S. I looked up the 848 NXX (Berkeley, CA.) and it said 1ESS. This is one of the well known #5 X-bar systems left that Pac-Bell wants to get rid of, but the State PUC won't let them write it off yet. I wonder if Pac-Bell changed it prematurely in anticipation of scrapping it out to the Middle East (where I heard a lot of Pac-Bell's old X-bar offices went ... can somebody confirm or deny?). > For that matter, how do you tell what equipment you have servicing you > if it is pre-ESS? Can you tell from the sequence of noises when you > dial? (But all BOCs are fully ESS now, right? Only odd private telcos > still have non-ESS gear -- am I right in saying that?) Actually, I can tell from dial-tone if it's an X-bar, old-ESS (1 to 4) or old GTE ESS. Hard to tell 5A's, GTD-5's and DMS's from each other. Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett Feild, California. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 10:45:08 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Quick Service A poster to the Digest described a new Southern Bell feature whereby one could get "instant" phone service, if the new residence had previously had phone service active. Pre-divestature, in a small town (Gowanda) south of Buffalo, phones were hard-wired, and owned by the phoneco. Most of the time, as folks moved, they simply left the instrument. My father was/is a carpenter, and doing remodeling jobs, would use the phones for outgoing calls. The phones were left set up so that you got dial tone, could dial any local call or the operator. You could also have a person call the operator, and she could ring the "no number" phone, without charge. My mother used this to keep in touch with Dad; she'd call the operator, and say "ring the phone at such and such address" and it'd work. As recently as Sept. '89 it *still* worked this way! And in fact, at that time, in town calls could be dialed w/5 digits; i.e., the full number is (716)-532-xxxx, you can dial 2-xxxx. In miles covered, the local dialing area is impressive. My folks are 7 miles from town, and can call towns nearly 30 miles away as local calls (with only 5 digits yet). Touch Tone is still done by a converter at the subscriber's residence, and is offered at $8/month including equipment rental. It's a Mitel dialer, as I recall, and not many folks have it. On the plus side, I had the laptop, clip-leaded to tip and ring; pulsed out back to Texas with no major problems while there. Cute saying goes here..... from Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 15:43:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: Skypager What are the approximate costs for the Skypager? Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 +1 412 624 6424, FAX +1 412 624 6436 | JJC@PITTVMS.BITNET | jjc@cisunx.UUCP JJC@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU or jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Choke Lines Date: 25 Mar 90 23:46:15 GMT Organization: very little Someone asked about choke numbers, which are used when generating a huge volume of calls to a single number intermittently. The best example is when a radio station is giving away $10,000.00 to the 15th caller. Before they started this service, the radio station would give out a number for a phone that went into the announcer's booth, and folks from all over town would repeatedly dial (because they got busies) into the exchange that served the radio station. In some instances, this caused severe problems with the switch serving the station, and other subscribers had trouble calling 911 or even getting dial tone. Also, it tended to block all of the trunks from the other switches that served people trying to call in. So what they did was to create a special prefix. On any one switch, they may have all of the calls to this prefix go through a few dedicated trunks. This way when you have more attempts to dial the number in a certain exchange than you have trunks available, you get a local all-trunks-busy, rather than having the call go all the way through to the end exchange, tieing up huge numbers of trunks just to get a busy back. This is a lot handier than having to monitor the network for this kind of activity, and reprogram it based upon demand. There are also some interesting things that happen when more than one radio station runs a promotion at the same time, or if someone tries the service while another station is taking calls. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Choke Lines Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 1:39:13 EST From: John Boteler I understand a trend is afoot to charge for all calls to radio station contest choke trunks. The theory (argument, etc.) is that since callers to these contests tie up much network resources, even if they never make it out of their own offices, that they should pay for the inconvenience to the other subscribers. Is this trend fact or fantasy? Is it a matter of tariffs or is there some other technical factor to consider? May the blessings of The Telephone Company be upon you! John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Subject: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System Date: 25 Mar 90 09:34:21 GMT When someone mentioned five digit telephone #'s in rural areas as being supported by stepper hardware, I was reminded of a current topic that I've come upon: My local Cable TV vendor has, like many others, a Pay-per-view service that takes telephone orders. No Big Deal. Recently, they have introduced "Top Event Express", a _6_ digit phone number that evidently does some sort of Calling Party ID, and passes it in a machine-readable form to the cable company's computer, which asks for my order, WITHOUT ever asking who I am. The number is "103800", which looks to me like a carrier access number followed by "0". I have tried scanning a bit with this carrier access code (if indeed it is one), and the only thing I've run into was an intercept operator of some sort who had no information as to why she was even there. [Not surprising] I'd appreciate any clues as to how this is implemented, and why more businesses haven't jumped on the bandwagon. Bob Stratton UUCP: strat@cup.portal.com, strat@well.sf.ca.us Stratton Systems Design GEnie: R.STRATTON32 Delphi: RJSIII Alexandria, VA Prodigy : WHMD84A PSTN: 703.765.4335 ------------------------------ From: charles he hemstreet Subject: Cordless Phone Range Date: 25 Mar 90 23:04:04 GMT Reply-To: charles he hemstreet Organization: Colorado State University I have a question about the FCC regulations concerning portable phones (not cellular). I recently bought a cobra cordless phone and it doesn't seem to get that great a range. The model is CP468. Can anyone tell me what the maximum allowable range is for new cordless phones. I remember back in the days when it wasn't so regulated that one could purchase a phone with a range of 1500 feet, and that was rare. Standard range was a 1000 feet. The box I got the phone in doesn't say anything except .... "maximum allowable range". If anyone can fill me in, I would sure appreciate it. You can send response to me via email. Thanks, Chip !===========================================================================! ! Charles H. Hemstreet IV !internet: hemstree@handel.cs.Colostate.Edu ! ! Colorado State University ! ! !===========================================================================! [Moderator's Note: The FCC cannot regulate the *range* or distance travelled of any radio signal, including cordless phones. That would be impossible, based on the wild and sometimes whacky ways radio signals are propogated and skip around. What the FCC regulates is the output or level of radiation from a transmitter, and the length of the (transmitting) antenna used. Cordless phones are limited to a hundred milliwatts (a tenth of a watt) output, and antennas of a certain design and length. Electromagnetic waves of this length (about 8 meters) and strength typically can be received for 800-1200 feet. Some cordless phone manufacturers optimize the construction of their device (what we used to call 'peaking' our CB radios) by a liberal interpretation of FCC rules relating to the modulation on the units among other things. So they get another couple hundred feet of range under ideal atmospheric and other conditions. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #206 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25420; 26 Mar 90 10:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26920; 26 Mar 90 4:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03678; 26 Mar 90 3:23 CST Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 3:06:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #207 BCC: Message-ID: <9003260306.ab29430@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Mar 90 03:05:45 CST Volume 10 : Issue 207 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Programming [Jeff Wasilko] Distinctive Ring Converter [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Misinterpreted Numbers [Tad Cook] Re: Enhanced 911 [Jay Maynard] Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills [Robert Savery] Phone Rates, Books, etc [Jack Winslade] XMODEM Protocol [enrico!danny@uunet.uu.net] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [B. Templeton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:18:16 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Cellular Programming In a previous digest, Lance Ware asked: >Second, when I bought my last cellular phone, on a Sunday, the dealer >typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me five phone #'s to >choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info >on how Cellular Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has >control over? Cellular phones need quite a bit of information to work. Each phone has a electronic serial number (ESN) permanently assigned to it. This serial number is used for identification/authentication of the phone. Installers must program information about the cellular carrier (system identifier code) you have chosen, your lock code, along with the phone number. Each type of cellular phone has different programming techniques, and they are closely guarded since it is possible to defraud the service provider by changing the phone number or ESN. Note that there are extensive systems in place to prevent fraudulent calls. Generally, it is not possible to make more than one fraudulent call per phone number before the system blacklists/turns off that phone number. Your dealer only has control over the phone. As you might expect, all features (i.e., call waiting, three-way calling, etc.) are enabled at the switch. | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:30:50 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Distinctive Ring Converter In a previous Digest, someone asked about a device to route calls to particular devices/extentions based on the ring pattern. Well, as I was flipping through TE&M I saw an ad for such a device. The manufacturer is Ci Network Products. Their address is: Charles Center, 5600 Apollo Drive Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 (708) 806-6300 This is the short blurb in the ad: "Recent telco offerings of two or more directory numbers on a single line by employing distinctive ringing cadences have afforded Ci an opportunity. Its Distinctive Ringing Converter (DRC) identifies the ringing cadence assigned to a fax machine, for example, and passes the ringing signal only to the fax terminal, avoiding attendant interuption of the automated answering sequence." | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. | ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? Date: 26 Mar 90 06:00:10 GMT Organization: very little The Moderator mentioned that it is illegal for payphones to block 10XXX access, per an FCC ruling. Any specific reference on this? Our WA state PUC just told me that blocking 10XXX is OK, as long as there is some OTHER way to get through; such as charging 25 cents to call 950-1022 instead of 10222 for MCI. 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 [Moderator's Note: Didn't we cover this in a Digest some months back? Was it the FCC (I think it was), or was it it one of the state commissions which laid down the law to those guys? PT] ------------------------------ From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:49:19 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Far be it from me to promote the abuse of 911, and >in fact I teach that 911 should only be used in dire emergency, when >intervention by the police, fire or medical personnel is needed >immediatly. But let's not second-guess what 'shortness of breath' means. >In Chicago not long ago, a grandmother had a heart attack; her five year >old grandson called 911 to report 'gramma is breathing funny'. PT] Basic rule: Emergency personnel would much rather respond when they didn't have to then not respond when they were needed. If in doubt, CALL. It's never appropriate to chastise someone for calling 911 when they honestly feel that they have an emergency. As for ANI on 911, it does indeed help matters. I used to run with a fire department that did its own dispatching, and each member served a shift in rotation up at the station answering the phones. It was not uncommon at all for a distraught caller to have trouble either remembering or saying their address; even with the help of a tape recorder attached to the phone line to play back the call, we had to guess at addresses far more than I would like. A correct E911 database removes that problem. Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. attctc, RIP. It was nice knowing ya +---------------------------------------- "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum [Moderator's Note: You are right on both counts. Better safe than sorry is the best rule; however the abuse 911 takes here in Chicago is extreme at times. People come home from work to find they have been burglarized, so they call 911. That is not an emergency. It would have been an emergency if they were there and caught the burglar in the act. Whether the police arrive in two minutes or twenty minutes at this point is not important. What annoys me are the people who call 911 to report their car stolen from wherever they had it parked *yesterday*. That's not an emergency either. ANI is a big help here due to similar sounding streets. In the old days a caller yells in the phone, "help my house in on fire! 4921 Western Avenue ... " then slams the phone down and runs outside. The Fire Department had to dispatch a company to both 4921 *North* Western and 4921 *South* Western Avenue, at a waste of manpower and resources for one company or the other, or *both* if it was a malicious phalse alarm. Thank goodness those days are over. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 16:55:52 EST From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a recent article, Jack Winslade wrote: >Measured service is available, but they do not promote it, nor do >they tell in the phone book which prefixes are how many units, ect. " Here are the useage rates --- (Omaha, Nebraska) .------------------------------------------ | | Each | For Calls | | Each | Additional | Within Local | | Minute | Minute | Calling Area* | |----------|--------------|---------------| | 5c | 1.0c | 0 - 10 miles | |----------|--------------|---------------| | 7c | 1.3c | 11 - 15 miles | |----------|--------------|---------------| | 9c | 1.5c | 16 - 20 miles | |----------|--------------|---------------| | 11c | 1.7c | 21 - 25 miles | |----------|--------------|---------------| | 13c | 1.9c | 25 - 35 miles | `----------`--------------`---------------' * Long distance charges may apply to calls outside local calling area. "end quote. " You will recieve discounts if you call at night and on weekends. Calls made between 9pm and 9am weekdays and on weekends [ all day ] carry a 50% discount. " Disclaimer: The above was borrowed from the U S West phone book, Omaha edition, page 7 If you know where you are calling and how far away it is, it's not to hard to figure out the charge.If all you have is the phone number and no idea of the address,I've found that unless your calling outside the metro area most calls will fall in the 5c catagory. I have had Measured service for a while now, and until I got a modem, found that it saved me $5.00 a month. U S West tracks my calls by catagory, adds up the charges and applies the charge to a $5.00 allowance they give you. If you go over the allowance, you are only charged the difference. In my case, the basic service charge is $16.10. The basic charge for unmeasured service charge is 20.45. Even with all the time I spend on bbs around town, I've never used up the $4.35 difference.Usually I run about $3.00 over. BOB Disclaimer: These must be my opinions, no one else wants them! --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 16:58:29 EST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Phone Rates, Books, etc. Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 JSW writes: ... the Omaha measured service rates do not appear in the phone book. Robert Savery writes: ... here they are, page 7 of the phone book. Oops! I was not looking in the 'real' phone book, but the alternate one that Omaha has had for 3-4 years. I checked in the 'real' one and sure enough, they are posted. Omaha, as do several other cities, has a competing second directory. Small business owners are griping because they now are compelled to take out ads in both to insure maximum coverage. Of course, both U.S. West and the competing company both assert that theirs is the 'official' city of Omaha phone directory. To the phone consumer, I have noticed one benefit. Before the competing directory was published, it was like pulling teeth to get more than one copy of the directory per line. Now U.S. West will give you as many copies as you can use. Good Day! JSW --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: danny Subject: XMODEM Protocol Date: 24 Mar 90 01:14:22 GMT Organization: Innovative Interfaces Inc., Berkeley, CA I am writing a program that handles xmodem protocol. I need books, programs or whatever information on xmodem. Please e-mail me at uunet!enrico!danny since I don't read this group. Thanks in advance. DC ------------------------------ From: Brad Templeton Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 3:18:17 EST Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the Telco's positions somewhat on this. The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence phones a break because of their patterns of low use. Residence phones are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use business phones get. So they deserve a lower cost. But BBS phones, and indeed even modem phones, aren't like that. If you need a multi use BBS, that means you probably have lines that see constant use. Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you need a PBX to get that level of usage. Yes, part of the cost difference goes back to "ability to pay," but in reality the telco doesn't and needn't care what you do with the line or how much money you make from it. What affects them is how much use it gets. So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more than the basic business rate! Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see such intense use. The current system isn't fair, of course. There are many businesses who have little usage, and residences who use the phone a lot. And BBSs tend to use the phone more off-peak, while businesses don't. The system is created to provide some statistical difference. But who can argue that a BBS is in the usage class of a general residential line? Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 [Moderator's Note: Mr. Templeton is the Moderator for the funny stories and jokes newsgroup (rec.humor.funny) on Usenet. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #207 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21003; 27 Mar 90 3:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03691; 27 Mar 90 1:38 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26904; 27 Mar 90 0:32 CST Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 0:30:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #208 BCC: Message-ID: <9003270030.ab32343@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:30:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 208 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [K. Denninger] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [G. Kloepfer] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSAURD vs Ma Bell [P. da Silva] COSUARD and Business Rates [Jon Solomon] Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Reply-To: Karl Denninger Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:19:11 GMT In article <5647@accuvax.nwu.edu> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 207, Message 8 of 8 >I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the >Telco's positions somewhat on this. I don't. >The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence >phones a break because of their patterns of low use. Residence phones >are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use >business phones get. So they deserve a lower cost. This is not true. Residential phones, at least in the USA, are charged at a lower rate for reasons which have nothing to do with usage patterns. It has to do with the notion that everyone should be able to not only have a phone line, but be able to afford to use it, at least within some defined "local" area. Business users >subsidize< residential customers at present in the US. That is, the typical residential bill does not cover the cost of providing service to that customer. This is being phased out slowly now that Ma Bell is broken up, but the last I heard it had not completely taken place. >But BBS phones, and indeed even modem phones, aren't like that. If >you need a multi use BBS, that means you probably have lines that see >constant use. Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you >need a PBX to get that level of usage. Oh? Ever have a teenager in your home? Were you ever a teen with a number of friends to call? My household, when I was growing up, had the phone in use from about 4-5 pm until 10 or 11, every weeknight. There was, given, a break about 6 or so (for dinner!). Then my sister would get back on the line and stay on -- for hours at a time. (Admittedly I did this once in a while too). >Yes, part of the cost difference goes back to "ability to pay," but in >reality the telco doesn't and needn't care what you do with the line >or how much money you make from it. What affects them is how much use >it gets. Yes, and for INCOMING calls the caller pays the bill. That is, as long as you don't dial out, the phone company should not care how long you are on the line, since the other user's end is paying the freight for your phone to be "off hook". In Chicago, the originator indeed does pay the bill - by the minute. Outside of an 8-mile radius for residential customers, and on ALL CALLS for business customers. Within roughly 8 miles a residential customer pays about a nickel per call -- regardless of how long they talk. >So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more >than the basic business rate! Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit >greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see >such intense use. But the other end of the call is ALREADY paying for the use! Why should BBS owners, or any other RECEIVER of a call, be charged differently than anyone else? The caller is already paying the freight! And not all BBS systems get that level of use; those that do may only get it for a couple of hours a day. I know personally of two 12-line systems in the Chicago area which have peak usage for perhaps an hour a day -- and at least 12 hours during which there is >no< activity (people do sleep you know!) Shall we have a "teenager" tax on the phone too? If you have a teen in the house, there is a high probability that the phone will be used more like a business than a residence, so anyone with a teen should pay business rates, right? >The current system isn't fair, of course. There are many businesses >who have little usage, and residences who use the phone a lot. And >BBSs tend to use the phone more off-peak, while businesses don't. The >system is created to provide some statistical difference. But who can >argue that a BBS is in the usage class of a general residential line? I can easily argue it, given that there are such things as teenagers and that their phone lines aren't rated as business lines. In addition to living with one such teen during her "phoney" years (:-) I also ran a BBS for about 6 years during that time. The voice line for our home was in more constant use than my BBS telephone! The point about off-peak use is even more relavent. A BBS system costs the telco nearly NOTHING to allow on the network, given that the peak usage for these lines tends to occur after the supper hour -- when most of the capacity of the system is quiescent! Since the caller is paying for the call, the telco is receiving revenue that it would otherwise not get at all, with no undue (read: requiring additional expense) load on their equipment. After all, telco's design and implement their load capacity for daytime business use -- residential and BBS use, especially at night when it is the only real load, are miniscule in comparison. Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY Date: 26 Mar 90 23:10:37 EST (Mon) From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." In article <5647@accuvax.nwu.edu> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence >phones a break because of their patterns of low use. Residence phones >are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use >business phones get. So they deserve a lower cost. I disagree entirely on this point. This was discussed back a few months ago with regard to the same issue -- I think you will find that a teenage youngster in the household can (and may) generate more telephone usage than a BBS might. As for your frequency of use argument -- why should the receiver of a telephone call be charged for receiving calls - regardless of what kind or quantity. The telcos are billing the customers who call the BBS (sans long distance users, but that, of course, is absorbed in the FCC line charge, right?). They *are* receiving the appropriate amount of revenue for the volume of calls being made to the line(s). >Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you >need a PBX to get that level of usage. Why? And does it matter that one needs a PBX at all? >So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more >than the basic business rate! Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit >greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see >such intense use. Then what you are implying that one should pay their phone bill _not_ based on the class of user that is using it, but rather the amount of time per month that the line is used (for INCOMING or OUTGOING calls). If this is the case, then the idea of a 'business line' or 'residential line' (or even the 'life line' (subsidized low-income phone)) should be entirely eliminated, since if one doesn't use their phone, they won't get billed for it (save a monthly service charge, which should be equal for any user, plus any special 'features' added to the line). I'm attempting not to flame your point, but I do feel that if you're going to make a point to charge BBS phone users more for a line, then perhaps what you really should recommend is that the way telephone lines are billed be completely reworked. Personally -- I'm not convinced that BBSs put enough 'stress' on the telephone system where the telcos are finding it necessary to increase the amount of service they provide (ie. increase amount of equipment) to service the BBS comminity. Multi-line homes must pay for each line (installation plus monthly service charge). I see no reason why a BBS operator (or computer user of any kind) should pay extra for their phone service. Gil Kloepfer, Jr. ...!ames!limbic!gil | gil%limbic@ames.arc.nasa.gov ICUS Software Systems -- Western Development Center P.O. Box 1 Islip Terrace, NY 11752 ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 02:35:55 GMT > So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more > than the basic business rate! Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit > greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see > such intense use. We've seen this argument before. If the length of calls is a problem, the fair thing is to go to metered service. That way you get everyone, including the folks who *talk* for hours. If you can't do that, it's unjust to pick on computer hobbyists. Personally, the times I've run a BBS the usage on that phone line has gone *down*, because I'm no longer calling out to work on that line. _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:33:57 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: COSUARD and Business Rates New England Telephone has the best possible solution which I think is most fair and impartial. 1) Residence customers can not have Residence Measured and Residence Unmeasured (or Metropolitan) service in the same premise. You can have 100 lines measured, or unmeasured/metropolitan, but you can not have two lines, one measured, and one unmeasured. This is a fairly recent situation. 2) BBS's lines are considered business only if they are incoming (and thus incur no message units), even though the lines are measured. 3) You can hook an unmeasured line on your BBS only if you and your fellow residence people (roommates, family, etc) use it. Mainly if it is used here for my own personal use or by me (even if it is used for BBS "business"), it can be a resident unmeasured line. Business rates are $25.00/month, resident metropolitan service is $22.00/month. This includes the access charges, and wiring insurance (whatever it is called in your areea) meaning I can call repair service if my line is broken and they will fix any part of it. Basically, I can set up a BBS with a UUCP dial-in (business/measured) and a UUCP dial-out (a separate line -- metropolitan unmeasured) for about as much business or residence. The way they handle business installation here; you can have 5 lines installed for $100.00 even though the basic rate is $125.00 ... go figure. Southwestern Bell should not, in my opinion, grant residence lines for BBS service since they have to recover the cost of the copper, between your home and the central office, which is not completely done by residence lines. Residence service is priced at the "lowest possible level", and business service is priced at the "prevailing economic rate". I think residence service fails to recover all costs since PUC's are generally reluctant to stiff customers with the costs. Instead they price business rates which are usually more prolific (note, usually) in a given community, to recover the costs of residential users. This should be the guideline: Residence service is for the use of the party, and other occupants of his home, and rarely and occasionally, guests. Note that a guest who stays too long becomes an occupant. Business service is mainly for people to call in (churches, etc use business service even though they are not for profit), and for the completion of "business" related to the use the line provides (in this case the operation of a bbs). Where you get something back is where you use residence measured rates, which cost $6.75/line incl access fees. Also, if your uucp outdials can be ddone in unmeasured service that is $14.00/line. You can save bundles if they will let you do that. But you aren't paying for what you use. Good luck convincing the powers that be to let you suck the juice off of the rest of us. jsol ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 16:28:47 GMT In article <5552@accuvax.nwu.edu> Steve Nuchia writes: > >About the only BBS I call regularly any more is a multiline BBS, run > >without fee on a hobby basis. It occurs to me that if this position > Where were you when we were begging for intervenors? Where were you begging? I haven't seen any requests on any of the local groups or on Sanctuary, the BBS in question and the only BBS I currently call ... I can't get into the cliquish chattiness on most BBSes (and also, incidentally, on alt.cosuard). I have posted messages on alt.cosuard in the past, and recieved a resounding silence... while trying to keep up with the local BBS chatter in it. I finally gave up under the assumption that COSUARD didn't want or need input from Usenet. _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #208 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23804; 27 Mar 90 4:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01579; 27 Mar 90 2:42 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03691; 27 Mar 90 1:38 CST Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 1:02:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #209 BCC: Message-ID: <9003270102.ab24262@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Mar 90 01:00:10 CST Volume 10 : Issue 209 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (minor correction) [isjjgcd@prism.gatech.edu] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Bill Fenner] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Ken Dykes] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Jim Rees] Re: Phone Harassment [Tom Perrine] Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Bill Fenner] Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Scott Ferguson] Re: 911 and Home PBX's [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Enhanced 911 [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Phone Rates, Books, etc. [Scott Fybush] Re: US Sprint [Sergio Gelato] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 05:03:59 EST From: isjjgcd@prism.gatech.edu Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (minor correction) Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology In article <5595@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > Carl writes: => DTMF code. For the letters other than Q and Z the first digit of the => code is the touch-tone button on which that letter appears, and the => second digit is the placement (1, 2, or 3) of the letter in that => group. For example, A is 21, B is 22, C is 23, D is 31, and so forth. => Code Character Mnemonic => 73 . PEriod => => H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L . (^ = space) => 4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9 => ^^----------^^-----------------+ > Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same | >numeric code under this system? It seems like the only flaw under an --+ >otherwise quite usable system. >[Moderator's Note: It is such a good scheme in fact that there ought >to be some work-around past this one problem. PT] Ok, so I had a small memory glitch. :-) It's been about ten years since I last used the MTS system. (Also, this was my first post to any newsgroup ever. I was concentrating on being concise.) I remember now that MTS "pronounced" that character (".", period) as "point," so it very well may have been POint, or 76. Also please bear in mind that there is no "standard" for translating DTMF to text, therefore any number of schemes could be used. As long as there is SOME remember-able word associated with each character, it's easy to learn the system. Once you're used to it, you don't even need the mnemonics anymore. Carl, considering a possible change of name. :-) ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: 26 Mar 90 18:17:03 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article <5613@accuvax.nwu.edu> point!dattier@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (David Tamkin) writes: |Carl, who gave no surname, wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 197: || Code Character Mnemonic || 39 ! EXclamation point || 73 . PEriod |That would mean period and S have the same code. It can't be. There |[Moderator's Note: This same point was raised in the last issue. Since |then I have thought about it and it occurs to me you could probably |eliminate the exclamation point and use 39 for the period instead. PT] Ah, but that elimitates the mnemonicness (what a word! :-) of PEriod. Maybe 77, PeRiod, or 74, PerIod, or ... Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: 27 Mar 90 01:46:24 GMT Reply-To: Ken Dykes Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo In article <5595@accuvax.nwu.edu> KLOHNER@drunivac.bitnet (Karl Lohner) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 4 of 7 > Carl writes: >> 4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9 > ^^----------^^-----------------+ > Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same | >numeric code under this system? It seems like the only flaw under an --+ >otherwise quite usable system. Perhaps someone decided that period means "Stop" ?? If not, we can always invent the legend after the fact :-) - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@watmath.uwaterloo.ca watmath!kgdykes postmaster@watbun.waterloo.edu B8 s+ f+ w t e m r ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:29:07 GMT In article <5595@accuvax.nwu.edu>, KLOHNER@drunivac.bitnet (Karl Lohner) writes: > > H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L . (^ = space) > > 4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9 > ^^----------^^-----------------+ > Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same | > numeric code under this system? It seems like the only flaw under an --+ > otherwise quite usable system. No, that's a typo. I don't remember what '.' was exactly, but it may have been '37'. All the codes were unique. As I remember, it was possible to produce all 256 EBCDIC (this is IBM, remember) codes, and all of the ones you ever really needed you could make with two keystrokes. If you had a 16 button pad it was easier. I had a 10 button pad that I converted to 12 button by drilling two holes in the plastic front and adding two buttons. The switches were already there. In those days the tones were produced by a very clever circuit that had two LC tanks but only a single active element! I never did completely figure out how it worked. The inductors were big things encased in ferrite. One of the common failure modes was that the glue would fail and the ferrite would come apart. I could actually key in to the Audio Response Unit (ARU) faster than into a normal keyboard (this was before I learned to type). Many of the codes were mnemonic (comma was 26, "cm", for example). Recently I came across some scheme, from a bank I think, that required you to hit the key that the letter was on, once for first position, twice for second, three times for third. So 'a' is 2, 'b' is 22, and so on. Since each letter was variable length, you had to hit a '#' to terminate a letter. So some letters end up being four keystrokes! I just laughed when I saw this. More on the ARU: There were two of them. The first did the voice synthesis on the 360/67 cpu and used prodigious amounts of cpu time, but could synthesize anything at all. Someone had even programmed it to make music. I think it had four phone lines and was the size of a Vax 780. Later they replaced it with some rack-mount jobs that did their own synthesis but could only do phonemes, so were useless for music, but they kept the same touchtone input code. I don't know what ever happened to the ARU -- maybe it's still there? MTS hasn't changed much. ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Date: 26 Mar 90 17:45:47 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California > From a crime prevention point you should not have your last name on > your mailbox, front door or answering machine. All of these make it > that much easier for a burgular to determine if anyone is home. > My answering machine says "Hi this is Gary. I can't answer the phone > right now but ", etc. >[Moderator's Note: How about one that is on the same voicemail service >I use (Centel, Des Plaines, IL)? The number is answered, "After you >hear the tone, leave your message." Then the voicemail lady's default, >"You may start your message now." . That's it. PT] Some companies use these approaches to avoid unwanted visitors, etc. A friend works at a company that has a building on which *every* door says "Please use other door", with an arrow pointing to the right :-) Also, if you call someone there, the voice mail system answers using the called persons voice and the messages implies that you have reached their *home*. Subtle, but effective. Tom Perrine (tep) Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA (619) 455-1330 Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM GENIE: T.PERRINE UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! Date: 26 Mar 90 18:32:05 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article <5631@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Brandon S. Allbery" writes: |[Moderator's Note: |What do you want to bet we who got the WD-40 cards have to |'remind them' to issue us our five bucks credit for 'one hour of free |calling' once the third billing cycle passes without it? PT] Hm. I tried the WD-40 number the first day I saw it in the Digest; I still haven't gotten my neat-o new FON card. Should I bother calling them and bugging them? Should I win the WD-40 thing again? Should I give up? The only reason I wanted it was for the ("free") calls; I miss my PC Pursuit. :-) Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ [Moderator's Note: I suggest you order it again; everyone else got their card and some of us have recieved our first bills already. PT] ------------------------------ From: Scott Ferguson Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK Date: 26 Mar 90 14:54:35 GMT Organization: HP, Queensferry Telecomms (UK) >Does anyone know why BT don't itemize all calls >irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can >provide an answer to this? If BT listed all the calls under 50p you would receive a enormous bill for the paper required to print out all the bills. It's clearly a compromise between information and practicality. Scott Ferguson Hewlett Packard Queensferry Telecommunicationss Division Scotland scott@hpqtdla.HP.COM ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: 911 and Home PBX's Date: 26 Mar 90 16:40:07 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <5571@accuvax.nwu.edu>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes... >For example on my Panasonic 308 to get an outside line you have to >dial 81, 82 or 83. > >I'm told that it's not a technical limitation, the switches could be >designed to hunt for a free line but that then the telephone companies >want to sell you more expensive "pbx" lines. Some PBXs have that option; the Mitel SX-5, f'rinstance, could be run with or without trunk scanning. That lets you pick the "key system" or "PBX" tariff. In most cases, flat rate business PBX trunks cost more (about 1.5 to 2x) than individual lines. Measured trunks, however, don't have the surcharge, so in measured service areas you use "PBX" mode. As Patrick pointed out, some switches activate both options. In most tariffs that I've seen, residential PBXs are treated as residential lines, with no surcharge. Panasonic may have been aiming the switch at business users. >Perhaps what Panasonic should do is to have a special 911 mode, where >the switch drops the call on line 1, gets a dial tone, dials 911 and >then connects the set that dialled 911 to that line. It would be a nice idea for "911" to simply autodial 911 on a trunk, but ONLY if you didn't use "9" for trunk access. Else you might accidentally get the cops upset when you didn't mean to call them. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 26 Mar 90 17:02:23 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <5616@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes... >For example, the federal government recently purchased a new phone >system which will save it $200 million a year. And since this new >phone system only cost $25 billion the payback period is only a mere >ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE YEARS. I personally don't think FTS2000 was a good idea but the above is simply wrong! The gummint spends sagans (millions and millions) of dollars a year on phone calls. FTS2000 is a service provided by AT&T and US Sprint. It will provide lower bills, for intra-gov't calls, than any commercially available service. Perhaps the $25B is the total anticipated phone bill over a decade, but it's not an up-front expenditure. There's no "payback" period. The savings is of course a silly number based upon comparing it to a very inefficient network; it could save over a billion a year if you compared it to the cost of sending all calls through COCOTS! Still, the FTS2000 rates are pretty cheap. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:56:59 est From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Phone Rates, Books, etc. Having trouble getting yer local telco to give you more than one copy of the phonebook? Just go down to your local college or university -- phone books will be in plentiful supply all over campus ... at least they are here at Brandeis. Walk in any door and you'll be greeted by a big blue-and-yellow stack of them; and Boston phone books are big! I mourn for all the trees that died to support it... Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinoin. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:22 EDT From: Sergio Gelato Subject: Re: US Sprint >From: motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 7 of 7 >I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was >quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes >separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill. I gather the >same is true for MCI and other ld carriers. But *not* for AT&T. Why >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if >they can, why don't they? I once got billed by Sprint through the local telco (New York Tel). This was shortly after service was established on that line. (I told NYTEL to assign Sprint as the default carrier, and let them take care of notifying Sprint. Sprint may not have been told my address in time for the first bill.) So it is indeed possible for Sprint to bill through the local carrier. As to why they insist on doing their own billing, I would venture the following guess: it is cheaper (for them, at least). Note that I have no actual knowledge of how much NYTEL charges for third-party billing; but since Sprint &al. need to have their own billing department anyway (to take care of all these FONcards), they might as well do all of their billing themselves. To us customers, it means one more 25- (soon to be 30-) cent stamp per month -- that is usually negligible compared to the amount of a long distance bill. Sergio Gelato ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #209 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26219; 27 Mar 90 5:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09809; 27 Mar 90 3:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01579; 27 Mar 90 2:42 CST Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 1:50:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #210 BCC: Message-ID: <9003270150.ab05531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Mar 90 01:50:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 210 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis [Will Martin] Problem with Northern Telecom Switch [Jesse W. Asher] Review of the DataTool 5500 [Stephen J. Friedl] Sprint Voice FON Card [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma] INTRAstate Calling Plans [Lawrence M. Geary] Smart, Secure Answering Machines [Tom Neff] Ringing a Busy Phone [Paul Nakada] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 9:51:33 CST From: Will Martin Subject: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis The local St. Louis TV news had stories last night about a breakdown problem in our local 911 service. This seems to have been going on for the past year, but only now is being reported. The situation is that the 911 central-contact point is a roomfull of police operators in a new communications center in the downtown area, next to the main police station. The EMS crews, though, are dispatched from a totally separate station miles away from this. The lines between the two sites break down frequently, like 11 times in the past 10 months (or 10 times in the past 11 months ... whatever). These breakdowns happen with *any* bad weather; it just happened Saturday with a heavy snowfall. It has happened with rain and hot weather, too. What happens is that calls to 911 for medical-type emergencies are transferred to the EMS center by the 911 operators. The caller hears a new ring, and then the EMS people answer. When the breakdowns happen, calls in progress which have been so transferred go dead. New callers being transferred get endless rings but the EMS site doesn't get the call. When this happens, all the EMS people pile into cars and trucks and move en masse to the downtown site and resume operations from there. That takes about an hour during which the police operators try to handle medical emergencies for which they are not trained. The solution being called for is to move the EMS dispatchers to the communication center. Only one of the TV stations that carried this news item (that I saw) even mentioned Southwestern Bell. That one stated that SW Bell "knew the cause of the problem and was working on it." Seems that it has been quite long enough for any technical bug to have gotten fixed! No details on the technical nature of this problem were ever given; I know SW Bell people read this list -- how about posting the true details of what is going on here? Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch Date: 23 Mar 90 23:09:14 GMT Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" Organization: Dynasys: Consulting for the Future. I'm not sure what kind of problem this is, so I'm posting in different places. I'm trying to get a 3B2 hooked up to the net, but I'm having a strange problem that keeps my from getting a good connection. According to the people there (who don't know anything about the switch), they have SL-1 Northern Telecom "integrated voice/data switch" that they use on campus (local college). It not only directs voice calls, but also handles data calls. What happens is that you call this one number (everyone that wishes to connect to the computers on campus call this number) and connect (I assume with the switch). It then asks you for a number to call. You punch in from your keyboard what number you wish to connect to (a four digit number). Then, supposedly, you are connected to one of three modems which puts you in contact with the 3B2. Here's where the problem is: I used cu to call this number and input the four digit number to gain access to the 3B2. It connects to the 3B2, but all characters are turned to upper case with a backslash in front of all characters which are supposed to be upper case. It's very strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:". If you type something in, it too is in uppercase. Does anyone know these symptoms and have any suggestions on what to do about them? Any help would be gratefully accepted. Thanx. Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: {fedeva,chromc,autoz}!dynasys!jessea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 17:57:52 -0500 From: mtndew!friedl@uunet.uu.net Subject: Review of the DataTool 5500 Hi folks, This is a review of the Datacom Technologies DataTool 5500, a multifunction datacom tester. If you are not interested in RS-232, skip this article. If you do use RS-232 a lot, you cannot live without this (unless *maybe* you have an HP data scope, but it's still pretty awesome). The DT 5500 at first glance is a really fancy breakout box. It's got a red and green LED on each signal line on both sides (total of 100), plus the traditional jumpers and DIP switches. The LEDs are buffered so they don't load down the lines being monitored very much. What makes it so useful is the little Z80 and 16x2 LC display. It has a handful of tests built in, and I use about half of them regularly. Listed below are the major categories of tests, plus a description. Note that each of these has many options, and I just touch on the high points. This is a remarkably versatile tool. Self Test - this is obvious Pin Analyzer - you run a jumper from a special pin to any of the RS-232 lines, and it tells you high or low level (with voltage) receiver, ground, or no connect. Being able to track down a receiver is *really* handy when trying to connect something without a manual. Analyze Device - this is amazing. You stick this in a data stream and it sniffs it to tell you bit rate, parity, and number of stop bits. I once had a really old terminal with no manual and a non-obvious bit rate. Rather than try all 2^16 combinations of the DIP switches, I stuck a book on the spacebar and the DT told me everything in a few seconds. Send Data - It can send a handful of different messages (80/132 scroll, QBF, your own message, etc.) at any serial setting. I use this when hooking up printers so I can make sure the flow control is right before I start diddling with the lp spooler. Kind of good for testing how fast a serial port can take data at full speed without choking (especially at 38.4kbps!) Trap Data - this is the best of the bunch. Put this in a data stream, and it will trap the data going in one or both directions. It has a total of 4kb for the buffer, and you can trigger on the start of test, a message match of your choice, or when you hit the reset button. While the test is running, the data stream is flowing past on the LC display, and when it is finished you can review both TD and RD trap buffers with a fairly convenient set of keystrokes. You can print the trap buffers to a serial or a parallel printer. If you do RS-232 without some kind of datastream trapping, you are working without your eyes. Printer Setup - it sends a message to a printer in all combinations of bit rate, parity, and stop bits, and you watch it until something prints that makes sense. It is possible for garbage serial data to confuse the printer sometimes, but if you don't have a manual, you will probably live with whatever you have :-). I don't use this much. Data Throughput - this monitors a serial line and tells the data rate through the line in CPS and % of occupancy. Nice if you want to see how well uucp between two machines or a TrailBlazer is doing. BERT - as bit error rate testers go, this is supposed to be a good one, but I don't use it. The manual uses BERT as their introductory example to get the user comfortable with the box, and it struck me as being well done (from my very limited perspective). Monitor SDLC - I never work with SDLC and know nothing about how nice this is. The docs seem to indicate that the support is fairly extensive. Polling - more stuff I don't use, I barely know what it is. Bias Distortion - this measures how much a data link messes up a signal. They send a 50% duty cycle square wave signal out one end, and you're supposed to loop it back on the other end. It reads the wave coming back and reports the actual duty cycle coming back: if it's not 50-50 then there is distortion somewhere in the line. I don't use this but probably should. Event Timing - this measures the time between two events, an "event" being a transition of a signal line. Really nice to know long DTR was low or how long it takes CTS to follow RTS or some other such measurement. Print Test Data - this prints the trap buffer or the BERT results. I use this with trap data all the time. Load User Msg - this lets you download a message from an external device (say, a PC or a terminal) into the message buffer. You can either use this as a print test pattern for output or a message to match on trap data. I've not used this yet but know that I will soon enough. The DT5500 supports async to 38400bps and sync to 64000bps, plus SDLC. I never use sync or SDLC so my knowledge of the entire topic is weak (but the rest of the box is so good that I can't help but assume that they did this part well too). They also support parallel for the tests that make sense (i.e., send/trap data, print test data, etc.) It operates on three 9-volt batteries or external power. They use one of those power bricks, but the brick is in the middle of the cable(!) instead of on the wall end. I almost always use the AC so batteries last a long time for me. I wish the unit would recharge NiCd batteries if used. The unit is solidly built with a good feel. The unit costs $1295 retail, and I know of no dealers or anybody who gives discounts. I don't know if they have any kind of trial use or eval program, but it would make sense if they did because they would never get any of these returned. It's worth every penny. I formerly had the DataTool 5000, the lower-end unit, and I just got the 5500 -- it is so wonderful I can hardly see straight. I use it at least two hours every day, and without the two-way data trap I would be reduced to a bumbling idiot. It has saved me a bazillion hours. The 5000 is great too, but it only handles 19200bps and traps data one way. I don't think it does SDLC either, plus a couple of other more minor things, so definitely spend the extra $400 or so and get the 5500. Datacom Technologies (formerly Datacom Northwest) has been around for a while, and they have been totally great to deal with. I have owned their breakout boxes since 1984, and they have been nothing but helpful and responsive to me. I made several suggestions for improvements to the DataTool, and several of them made it into the product a few months later. They also give out those great little RS-232 screwdrivers at trade shows. I have no connection with Datacom Technologies other than being a fully satisfied and enthusiastic customer. The DataTool is unlike anything else, and other RS-232 people really gotta hear about this. You can call them at +1 206 355 0590 for literature -- they are in Everett, Washington (tell them you heard about it in TELECOM Digest :-). I'd be glad to answer any questions on any of this. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl "How in the world did Vicks ever get Nyquil past the DEA?" - me ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Voice FON Card Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 19:40:33 EST From: Ken Jongsma From the March 19 issue of [Communications Week]: US Sprint is poised to sign on its first users for a voice activated feature of its FON Card. With this new service, the sound of a caller's voice will activate speed dialing and message call delivery as well as verify that the charge customer is indeed the person making the call. Set to be initiated in May, the service was first developed as a way to reduce fraud. "Originally, we wanted a way to stop someone who stole authorization codes from breaking into the system," said Hal Poel, director of card marketing for US Sprint. "We found, however, that consumers were less interested in not getting ripped off than in using friendlier codes that were easier to remember." Although the service is available to residential customers, Poel said business travelers will likely have more opportunity to use the service. In speed dialing, callers establish their own voice phonebooks in which they set voice passwords that correspond with frequently called numbers. If a caller wants to reach home he could simply say "call home" and the Sprint service would do the rest. The message call delivery feature allows a caller who has received a busy signal or no answer to leave up to a two minute message that is delivered automatically. The system attempts to deliver the message every 15 minutes for three hours. The caller can call into the system to find out when and by whom the message was received and if their was a return message. ------------------------------ From: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) Subject: INTRAstate Calling Plans Date: 26 Mar 90 20:42:39 GMT Reply-To: 74017.3065@compuserve.com There's a number within my state, within my area code, that gets called frequently from my house. The exchange is "too far" to be included in the 20 hour/month "extended calling area" offered by the local telco. Is there a calling plan from one of the long distance companies that might apply here? Or should it be possible to get it as a "foreign exchange" of some kind? Right now usage is upwards of $40/month at evening rates and I'd like to find a way to reduce it. --Larry: 74017.3065@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 12:30:50 EST Subject: Smart, Secure Answering Machines Can anyone recommend a good answering machine that lets me program my own touch tone "password" of more than two digits? I want a new machine but I don't like the models that pick the first of 2 digits for you and only let you switch between two possible second digits, e.g. 43/46. Any idiot could bust that! Reply to me by mail and if there is interest I will summarize. ------------------------------ From: Paul Nakada Subject: Ringing a Busy Phone Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:37:39 GMT In an emergency situation, can a busy phone (off hook) be coerced into ringing its ringer? Even if the phone which is off hook doesn't ring, can another another phone on the same line ring? This could be a nice feature; a call waiting that rings the ringer instead of the call waiting tone. This would server the dual purpose of CW and warning of a forgotten off hook phone. Paul Nakada pnakada@oracle.com [Moderator's Note: No, you cannot get the bell to ring if the phone is off hook. The way the instrument is constructed prohibits this. When the phone goes off-hook, a couple contacts inside the phone break their connectivity in one direction and establish it in another, diverting the current which would have gone to the bell into the (internal) network instead. Other instruments on the line, although still in a position to ring the bell will not ring because the phone which is off-hook is grabbing all the current which comes down the line. And don't forget the change in voltage from the CO: it drops considerably when a phone goes off hook (because the resistance changes) and its this drop in voltage which tells relays at the CO to do their thing. The bell typically takes a lot of voltage to operate; just ask me about the time I had my Golden Screwdriver and my hands where they didn't belong when someone called while I was modifying an instrument. Thus was invented the Witches Wail, a loud obnoxious noise sent down the line intended to call attention to the off-hook receiver. That, and having the operator go in on the line and tell parties to can the sh--, and give someone else a crack at it. :) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #210 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00263; 27 Mar 90 8:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09809; 27 Mar 90 3:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01579; 27 Mar 90 2:43 CST Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 2:36:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #211 BCC: Message-ID: <9003270236.ab12615@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Mar 90 02:35:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 211 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service [Steven J. Owens] Re: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System [Willaim Berbernich] Re: Cellular Programming [Rob Gutierrez] Something to Consider [Jim Thomas] Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven J Owens Subject: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service Date: 26 Mar 90 20:34:50 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services Hi all, I wrote an article for a newspaper class about the SJG/SS business (my instructor found the intial premise amusing - sounded more like a 50s pulp serial with a hefty dose of postmodernism thrown in). In the course of writing the article, I gave SJG a call, and they put Steve Jackson on the line (evidently I caught him in a "lull," so to speak). Here is some of what he told me. By the way, I called the Secret Service too. They had one (1) number listed (their local office, that is). No address. The lady who answered the phone said she couldn't give out any information on the case over the phone. I asked if there was some sort of public information number or something I could call (since the number I *had* called was simply listed as "Secret Service," right there between Secor International and Secret Whispers). "I'm sorry, we cannot give out that information over the phone." Well, fine, then where do I go to get the information in person, since the address isn't listed? "I'm sorry, we cannot give out that information over the phone." It isn't as obnoxious as it sounds. A helpful Treasury Dept. official whom I called later told me that I'd probably reached their answering service. On with the comments from Steve Jackson ******** Is the BBS going to be back up? "We've been trying to get one and set it up, but we're having software trouble. The Secret Service people have been promising that the software would be returned...every day they say `It's in the mail, Federal Express will have it to you within 24 hours.' but so far we haven't gotten a copy." What did the search warrant say the Secret Service was looking for? "It took two paragraphs to say it, but what it boiled down to was `computer hardware and software, and records relating to computer hardware and software.'" How did you find out about the search? "When the staff showed up, the Secret Service was already here, and they wouldn't let anybody in. They cut or broke their way in to filing cabinets and boxes ... we would have been happy to unlock things if they'd let us in." Was the GURPS Cyberpunk Rulebook related to the cause of the search? "We're not sure on that - maybe in a roundabout way. When they were reading the handbook in my presence they were getting very upset and saying `This is just a handbook for computer crime.'" What is the status of the GURPS Cyberpunk book? The Secret Service confiscated all of the GURPS Cyberpunk materials, including the copies uploaded on the BBS. "We're recreating the text" from material downloaded by users, material sent out play testers, and old rough drafts. "Estimated losses are roughly $10,000 a week, for three or four weeks." This was excaberated by initial delays while the SJG folks waited for the promised return of the document instead of trying to recreate it themselves. Why did the Secret Service search SJG? All they will say is that it is in connection with a nationwide data piracy case. We have learned that it is in connection with the 911 emergency computer system, which is more than the Secret Service will tell us. What about the author of the GURPS Cyberpunk book? Was he searched as well? "Loyd Blankenship ... his home was searched earlier that day. They evidently was something of a sore point with the folks at SJG itself. "They descended on a desk being used as a repair bench" by the SJG staffer in charge of computer maintenance "it had about 2 or 3 half-assembled computers and other junk on it. They took everything." The staffer in charge of computer maintenance was particularly irked that the Secret Service even took a bag of nuts and bolts. And the sysop of the Illuminati BBS? Creede Lambard, aka Fearless Leader, they didn't bother him at all. They "ate some of the candy of his desk, but that's it." Can you tell me anything about the relation between the GURPS Cyberpunk book and the search? "In the course of writing the Cyberpunk book, Loyd made lots and lots of connections with the computer underground. He was also researching a mainstream book on the computer underworld at the time." Jackson conjectured that contacts made in this research may have led the Secret Service to suspect that there was a link between the computer pirates they are tracking and Loyd, and even Steve Jackson Games. Was the Legion of Doom on the SJG BBS? "It's possible that they were, but unlikely. I know of several people, who have that kind of background, who were on the board, but no active hackers." Of course, he pointed out, the board did allow aliases, so it's impossible to be certain... ********* I gave Loyd Blankenship a call to see if he could answer any of the several questions raised by this information and by things I'd heard on comp.dcom.telecom. His only comment was that he had no comment at this time (which, I suppose, might mean that he actually has something going on with the SS, or that his lawyer is a bit more paranoid than Jackson's lawyer and told him to answer all queries with "no comment", or that Jackson decided that PR was more important than being paranoid.) By the way, I'm still working on that article (re-write of it) so if anybody wants to comment and has some sort of important sounding "credentials" that I can quote, please drop me a line :-) (phone# is 412-885-2532, but you're unlikely to find me there - except maybe Tuesday and Thursday morning & early afternoon.) Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu "Well, that's one of the differences between life and fiction, after all. Fiction is supposed to make sense." _Telling_Lies_For_Fun_&_Profit_, Lawrence Block ------------------------------ From: The Wisdom Tooth Subject: Re: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System Date: 26 Mar 90 21:00:33 GMT Reply-To: The Wisdom Tooth Organization: DSP Lab, School of Electrical Engineering, Ga. Tech, Atlanta, GA In article <5638@accuvax.nwu.edu> well!strat@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Stratton) writes: >My local Cable TV vendor has, like many others, a Pay-per-view service >that takes telephone orders. No Big Deal. Recently, they have >introduced "Top Event Express", a _6_ digit phone number that >evidently does some sort of Calling Party ID, and passes it in a >machine-readable form to the cable company's computer, which asks for >my order, WITHOUT ever asking who I am. >I'd appreciate any clues as to how this is implemented, and why more >businesses haven't jumped on the bandwagon. Prime Cable here in Atlanta has the same setup, only you call a regular 7-digit number (340-xxxx). The recording thanks you for your order and a few minutes later your box gets the code to unlock the channel you ordered. I don't know how this could be done. I am not aware the the local telco (Southern Bell) is authorized a tariff of this sort (CLID) yet by the state PSC. Anyone know the answer here? I don't quite know how, but it does work. 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: Rob Gutierrez Subject: Re: Cellular Programming Date: 27 Mar 90 02:47:22 GMT Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes in V.10, Iss 207, Msg 1 of 8 > In a previous digest, Lance Ware asked: > >Second, when I bought my last cellular phone, on a Sunday, the dealer > >typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me five phone #'s to > >choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info > >on how Cellular Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has > >control over? > Cellular phones need quite a bit of information to work. Each phone > has a electronic serial number (ESN) permanently assigned to it. This > serial number is used for identification/authentication of the phone. > Installers must program information about the cellular carrier (system > identifier code) you have chosen, your lock code, along with the phone > number. Also, depending on the type of phone you get, he also has control over the options for it (speakerphone, horn alert, etc). With the Panasonic I have, a couple of other options that are only dealer- programmable are auto-lock on power cycle (having to enter my unlock code every time I turned it off and on) and DTMF interval (choosing 1/2 second or continious DTMF tone during a call). > Each type of cellular phone has different programming techniques, and > they are closely guarded since it is possible to defraud the service > provider by changing the phone number or ESN. Actually the ESN has never been dealer-programmable, though it has been field-programmable long ago through a socketed ROM. This was a problem for a while in which 'magic chips' were available which changed the ESN and telephone number (they were sometimes in the same ROM!) and 'cellular pirates' were able to make and receive calls. These old phones are still popular for that same reason, but have to be changed daily when the cellular company catches on to what's going on. BTW: The old G.E. CF-3000 phone I had had all of the programming instructions on the last pages!!! Nowadays, ESN's are now hard-soldered ROMs on the board or (lately) burned into the CPU of the phone. The only thing you can do is change the phone number, but since you can't change the ESN, once you defraud the cellular company, they got the ESN to block any more attempts to defraud them. > Note that there are > extensive systems in place to prevent fraudulent calls. Generally, it > is not possible to make more than one fraudulent call per phone number > before the system blacklists/turns off that phone number. Again for the casual person defrauding the cellular company, yes, there's a `bogus ESN' nationwide network being set up ... but for the hard-core pirate who changes his ESN daily, that's a different story. In a future issue, I will be detailing my experience with GTE Mobilnet here in San Francisco when I receive my first bill (ugh!). I've made experiments to the celluar services, regular calls, and 'choke line' calls along with L.D. and 800 calls. Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett Feild, California. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:13 CST From: jim thomas Subject: Something to Consider When Pat Townson, the Moderator of this Digest, indicated that the LoD discussions would be terminated, I, perhaps like many, dashed off a note objecting. Pat responded with a convincing rationale for his decision, one that is difficult to argue with. Loosely summarized, he says: 1. The volume of messages he receives is so high that he must, as a pragmatic matter, curtail some discussions. 2. There are imposed limits on the amount of mail he can send out, which means not all good (or bad) ideas can be aired. 3. He is bound by charter to keep the topics germane to telecom issues, which unfortunately limits some of the topics others of us find interesting. Most of us can sympathize with these constraints, and it is a reminder of the excellent job he does *in spite of* the restrictions imposed on him. Nonetheless, there are a number of issues raised by the LoD indictments that remain unaddressed or inadequately discussed. Mike Goodwin's recent note identified many of the legal issues pertaining to enforcement of computer abuse laws. There are other questions involving the role of media and law enforcement in creating an imagery, the ideological questions of control of information in a democratic society, the problems of computerized information and privacy, the role of "hackers" as in an increasingly technocratic world, and ethical questions of the behavior of the "computer underground (phreaks, hackers, and pirates). If there is sufficient interest, I propose a digest, perhaps called "The Computer Underground Digest," as a forum to raise these issues. If anyone is interested, send a bitnote note to: TK0JUT2@NIU (that's a zero, not an "oh") NOTE: The address for the proposed new forum *is not* the header of this address! I'll put together a trial issue over the next few days in response to some of the recent issues that have been raised. The first issue could include: a) A copy of the LoD indictment b) A copy of the Press Release accompanying it c) A news story or two d) A defense of aliases on BBSs e) And anything else anybody wants to send. If this sounds feasible, I welcome ideas or suggestions on what to include, and would especially welcome initial comments or observations. There are no restrictions on size or on topic, and controversial themes are welcome. For those who first want to know my own background or qualifications: I am currently associate professor (full in the fall) of sociology/criminal justice at Northern Illinois University and have been engaged in research with Gordon Meyer for the past two years on the computer underground. Although Gordon has not yet "volunteered," he would be co-moderator. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 2:27:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia I fully support the idea presented by Jim Thomas in the message just before this one. I only wish someone would come forward and volunteer to do the same thing for Caller*ID! Jim has indicated he will keep the mailing list discussion of the LoD going as long as there is interest, and I encourage any of you interested in the discussion to sign up independently with him. Of course, you will still continue to see some news items about LoD here in TELECOM Digest as well, but after the intial message and a couple replies as appropriate the discussion will move to his list. Some editorial changes have to be made here at this time due to the extremely heavy volume of mail we are receiving -- 1) Jim's idea shown above is being implemented immediatly. And in subsequent articles in the Digest, whenever the discussion tends to go on to the point that (a) it becomes acrimonious, (b) it clogs a great deal of space, or (c) it becomes removed from telephony and drifts into areas of the law and/or other social issues then *someone* will have to volunteer to start a temporary list to handle it. 2) Effective at this time (allowance made for stuff presently in the queue) ** signatures will be deleted from all messages in the Digest **. Most of you have reasonable signatures. Some of you have outrageously long and involved signatures, cute sayings, etc appended to your messages. By eliminating signatures, my estimate is that 10-15 percent of the space in each issue will be freed up. Please make sure your message has a 'reply-to' line and an 'organization' line. These are left intact when messages are digested. 3) The ratio of quoted text to original text allowed in the Digest will now be 25/75 percent. Usenet guidelines allow 50/50, and I have had to decline messages in the past from folks who sent a huge amount of quoted stuff with very little original stuff, because it won't go through the gateway. I was trying to edit this stuff myself to some extent, but some users complained about that. When possible, eliminate quotes and do paraphrasing instead. Quote if you must, and *do not* use line eaters and other work-arounds to defeat this rule. I estimate about 20-25 percent of each issue could be freed up if quotes were more restrained. The savings in space realized from signatures and quotes alone would mean I could put out two or three Digests per day instead of the four we are seeing now. Finally, articles properly edited will be given first consideration. I will continue to edit and layout the Digest, but your help in creating paragraphs, checking your spelling, grammar and syntax will be very much appreciated. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #211 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20365; 28 Mar 90 3:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20112; 28 Mar 90 2:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13243; 28 Mar 90 0:56 CST Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 0:30:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #212 BCC: Message-ID: <9003280030.ab06383@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Mar 90 00:30:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 212 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: US Sprint [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: US Sprint [Wally Kramer] Re: US Sprint [Rob Gutierrez] Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) [David Tamkin] Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line [Gordon Burditt] Panasonic and "Dial 9" [Ole J. Jacobsen] Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled [David Tamkin] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Mark Solsman] Re: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service [Ichiro Matsumura] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brandon S. Allbery" Subject: Re: US Sprint Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" Organization: Telotech, Inc. Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:25:42 GMT As quoted from <5599@accuvax.nwu.edu> by motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King): | I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was | quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes | separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill. I gather the | same is true for MCI and other ld carriers. But *not* for AT&T. Why | can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if | they can, why don't they? It may depend on the willingness of the BOC. Here in northeast Ohio, AT&T and Sprint bill through Ohio Bell, and MCI will begin doing so within the next few months. -=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=- ** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} ** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:27:11 PST From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: US Sprint Reply-To: Wally Kramer Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon A few weeks back I found myself midway between Portland and Seattle without my FONCARD. The sign on the payphone said LD was assigned to MCI, but since I was calling from Centralia, Washington to Seattle, I figured it would be intra-LATA (although I don't know for sure) so it would be carried by US West (previously Pacific Northwest Bell). My dial 1 carrier at home is US Sprint and I have a FONCARD, but I don't carry it around with me (don't want to lose it to unauthorized fingers). I also have an AT&T calling card (also left at home--but it's easy to remember its number) which I use when Sprint is inaccessible. I've never had anything to do with MCI. I dialed 0-938-xxxx and waited for the tone. The first time I got some funny clacking/gurgling sounds, and then nothing. I tried again, and got the familiar squirrelly fading tone. So I entered my AT&T number assuming it would either be rejected if really MCI, or accepted if it was US West. The call went through and ended normally. The phone didn't start ringing as I walked away. This month's US West bill had a page with MCI's logo and the charge for that call on it! Why did MCI accept AT&T's calling card number? Why did MCI bill for this call? *Flame On* Why does US Sprint pick such blasted hard-to-remember FONCARD numbers? The reason I don't use their damn card is because it's too blooming hard to remember the dog gone number. They'd get 50% more business from me if it were easier to remember the number! Why can't I pick, say, the first 10 digits, and let them pick the 4-digit "password?" *Flame Off* wallyk@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363 ------------------------------ From: Rob Gutierrez Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 28 Mar 90 04:20:08 GMT Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC SDRY@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sergio Gelato) writes in V.10, Iss 209, Msg 11 of 11 > >From: motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) > >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 7 of 7 > >I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was > >quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes > >separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill. I gather the > >same is true for MCI and other ld carriers. But *not* for AT&T. Why > >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if > >they can, why don't they? > I once got billed by Sprint through the local telco (New York Tel). > This was shortly after service was established on that line. (I told > NYTEL to assign Sprint as the default carrier, and let them take care > of notifying Sprint. Sprint may not have been told my address in time > for the first bill.) So it is indeed possible for Sprint to bill > through the local carrier. This is indeed true that ANY carrier can bill through the local telco (yes, including COCOTS, obviously). This is called 10XXX Random billing. An agreement is set up with the telco to provide LIMITED billing for unrecognized customers (callers without an account on the L.D. carrier they are using). Usually, if more than 3 months of this type of billing occurs, the telco sends a notice to the L.D. carrier that they will not accept anymore 'casual' billing for that phone number, but they do furnish the name & address for the L.D. carrier to bill directly. Remember, this is MUCH different than a "billing contract" that AT&T has with all the telco's and MCI has with some of them (Pac Bell, Southern Belle, etc.). A "billing contract" makes the local telco act as the L.D. carriers 'collection agent' and thus is paid to do so. This permits the L.D. carriers to continiously bill their customer through the local telco bill. At MCI, this is called "BOC Billing". This also allows the L.D. company to talor the actual billing pages to their taste (i.e.: type of detail and how it's presented) as opposed to just the straight list of calls on a '10XXX Random' billing. > As to why they insist on doing their own billing, I would > venture the following guess: it is cheaper (for them, at least)..... Very wrong. It is much cheaper for the L.D. companies to bill through the local telcos. This is not just because the savings on generating seperate bills. This is because of one bill convience (payments getting lost), more current payments (what happens if you don't pay your LEC bill .... no phone service!), and less calls to customer service (local telco reps could [supposedly] answer simple questions [ha!] before having to refer customers to the L.D. company). Spint has been unable to negotiate any billing contracts with any of the LEC's because of their billing snafu's. The LEC's have steadfastly refused contracts because they did not want the headaches that Sprint had in unraveling the mess. Remember, as part of the negotitated 'billing contract', the local telco reps do have to answer 'simple' questions about the L.D. bill in question. This is changing since they were able to negotiate ONE contract so far last year (don't know who with). The LEC's still do carry Sprint's 10XXX Random billing, but have outright refused to answer any questions about it, referring all the inquiries to Sprint. The problem here is that Sprint has no records of these calls, since there was no 'customer' account to bill them against, hence the reason to 'bill' the LEC to begin with. BTW: It's the LEC who has to 'credit' these type of calls (usually called 'refusal to pay', technically 'chargeback' or 'billback'), not the L.D. carrier. > Note that I have no actual knowledge of how much NYTEL charges for > third-party billing; Usually, for 10XXX Random billing, it's a percentage, and "Billing Contracts" are both a percentage and up-front fee. I, personally think that "billing contracts" (MCI: 'BOC Billing') are a great convience, but also another source of infringing on your privacy, since now the local telco has records of _both_ your local and long distance. Yes, I know this was true before and after the break-up with AT&T billed L.D. calls, but using an alternative gave me some sort of measure that records of all my calls couldn't be single-sourced. It didn't help any that one of the first things I learned to do at MCI was look up movie star's phone numbers and phone bills, then CNA the numbers to see who their friends were. This was better known as 'killing time'. Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations, Moffett Feild, California. P.S... No I did'nt sell those numbers to anybody, or give out the bills, or tell who their friends were, and so on, and so forth.....and I'm DEFINITELY not posting them here or e-mailing them to anybody!!! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 9:19:33 CST Sergio Gelato answered Steven King (not to be confused with author Stephen King) in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 209: | To us customers, it [receiving a separate bill from an IXC] | means one more 25- (soon to be 30-) cent stamp per month -- that is | usually negligible compared to the amount of a long distance bill. If you have a credit card (they accept MasterCard and VISA, perhaps others) and use MCI, you can save a stamp. MCI will bill your credit card directly if you wish. That gives you extra time to pay and, when the bill is right, saves you a stamp. [When the bill is wrong, it takes one stamp to pay the correct charges on your credit card and one to write to your card issuer to explain why you are refusing part of the billing from MCI, so it's the same total of two stamps you would have used if you sent MCI their own check.] For all my troubles with MCI, they've never billed me for an incorrect amount. They cut my statement on the twelfth of the month and it arrives around the twentieth, showing all detail of calls and taxes but nothing to remit because they've billed my MasterCard. That particular MasterCard's billing cycle ends on the twenty-ninth ofthe month, so I have until roughly the twenty-third of the next month to pay for the charges, including those from MCI. 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: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line Date: 26 Mar 90 23:54:53 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >[Moderator's Note: Mine had dip switches inside the unit which either >allowed or disallowed 9. If 9 was allowed, then 81 was selected as the >first choice, and 82 was selected when 81 was busy. Another dip switch >disallowed (or allowed) 9 calls to overflow to 82. That is, you could >force 9 calls to 81 only, returning NC condition to the caller if 81 >was in use. This still allowed direct connection to 82 by >knowledgeable users. PT] The KX-T61610 has a much more flexible setup. You can dial "9" to get any (non-busy and allowable) outside line, or "81" through "86" to get a specific outside line. Use of individual outside lines (via "9" OR "8x") for outgoing calls may be blocked, on a per-extension basis by programming, and you can specify a different set for "day mode" and "night mode". (In effect, this is two 16 x 6 bit arrays for "Extension x may use line y", one for day mode and one for night mode). So, for example, Ext 15 may use lines 1,2,3, and 5 during the day and 2 and 4 at night. (What constitutes "day" and "night" may be determined manually only or manually and by the clock.) An extension could be forbidden any outgoing outside calls at all. There is a different set of parameters for which lines ring on which extensions, day and night mode. Ringing on extension x for line y can be delayed by a (single, global, grr...) number of rings 1-4. You can also independently disconnect a line for everyone by programming that it isn't connected, then re-activate it when the telephone repair crew fixes the line, without changing the individual extension programming. In addition, there is another set of parameters for which lines may be accessed by dialing "9". This does not stop you from specifically asking for the line, but you can arrange things so you get your special line (FX or out-WATS or a dummy line) by dialing "85" but never by dialing "9". There are times I wish you could specify a preference order, but you can't. It takes the lowest-numbered eligible line. This last set of parameters is described in an addendum to the manual. It might not be present in all 61610's. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Tue 27 Mar 90 07:51:53-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Panasonic and "Dial 9" You do not have to dial 9 or 8foo on the Panasonic KX-t61610 if you use the proprietary phones (known to us who have them as "wizard's consoles"). With a wizard's console, you can program the system for "automatic CO line hunting". This means that when you pick up the handset or hit he speakerphone button, you wil get *real* (outside) dialtone rather than intercom (internal) dialtone. The disadvantage is not great for me, I live in a 1 bedroom apartment and seldom have reason to call any of the other extensions (the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom..) :-) Ole ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 17:32:07 CST Macy Hallock complained about receiving junk calls on his cellular phone and having to pay for airtime to boot, and I replied: > What a great argument in favor of Caller ID on cellular phones; if you > don't recognize the calling number, or if it is blocked, let it get > forwarded on no answer to an answering machine or voice mail. In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 206, Dave McMahan misunderstood that part of my post and responded: | What is to keep someone that is purposely power-dialing the cellular | exchange from not just doing it via a new number created specially for | that purpose? If you block his old one, how do you find his new | number until it is too late? If they want to get you, they will. I hadn't meant that the cellular customer should use Call Blocking to refuse calls from the power dialer's number. The blocking to which I had referred was Caller ID blocking, where a *caller* refuses to have his or her number provided to a callee who has Caller ID. If a cellular customer who has Caller ID sees that a caller has blocked the delivery of the calling number, the callee, not knowing who is calling, can let the phone ring unanswered and not get soaked for airtime. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 27 Mar 1990 21:37:20 EST From: Mark Solsman Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone In response to the Moderator's comment: I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional phone that was off-hook? Mark Solsman MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU [Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the experts? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 21:25:51 PST From: Ichiro Matsumura Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5698@accuvax.nwu.edu> it is written: > By the way, I called the Secret Service too. They had one (1) >number listed (their local office, that is). No address. The lady >who answered the phone said she couldn't give out any information on >the case over the phone. I asked if there was some sort of public >information number or something I could call (since the number I *had* >called was simply listed as "Secret Service," right there between >Secor International and Secret Whispers). I consider this rather odd. In my White Pages, the Secret Service is listed in the Federal Government Pages section at the front, not in the general directory. An address (presumably the Bay Area headquarters) is also given: 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Elliot Wilen ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #212 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22497; 28 Mar 90 4:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21885; 28 Mar 90 3:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20112; 28 Mar 90 2:00 CST Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 1:20:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #213 BCC: Message-ID: <9003280120.ab17696@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:18:35 CST Volume 10 : Issue 213 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Card [Don H. Kemp] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Bob Goudreau] Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Marcel Mongeon] Cellular Phone Question [Steve Elias] CUE vrs. Skypager [Allen Gwinn] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The Card Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 14:40:30 EST From: Don H Kemp Well people, Here's the "official" word from AT&T on their credit card... FOR RELEASE MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1990 NEW YORK -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T Universal Card, offering consumers the simplicity of a combined long-distance calling card and general purpose credit card with worldwide acceptance. The new card will be accepted by VISA or MasterCard merchants, will include discounts on AT&T long-distance calling card rates and will be supported by the only service guarantee offered on any VISA or MasterCard. Charter AT&T Universal Card members -- those customers who apply for the card in 1990 -- will pay no annual fee for life, as long as they use the card for a purchase once a year. Card members will receive a 10 percent discount off AT&T's calling card rates on AT&T calls made with the new card. "This combination of customer convenience, AT&T service and value is unique in the credit card industry," said Paul Kahn, president, AT&T Universal Card Services Corp. "It works just as the AT&T Card would when placing a long-distance call, and just as a VISA or MasterCard credit card would when purchasing goods or services or obtaining cash around the world." Features normally associated only with gold bank cards are standard on the AT&T Universal Card. These include free collision damage coverage on rental cars, free extension of a manufacturer's warranty on products purchased with the card, and free purchase protection from loss, theft, or breakage. Customers who choose to pay their charges over time will pay a variable annual rate of 18.9 percent -- lower than the rate paid by the average customer of the top 100 issuers of credit cards. In addition, when interest rates and annual fees are taken into consideration, the AT&T Universal Card will cost card members less than the combined price paid by more than 90 percent of the customers of the nation's top 25 card issuers. AT&T said no interest will be charged on long-distance calls made with the card unless they remain unpaid 30 days after being billed. On purchases, there will be a 25-day grace period before interest is charged. "For more than 100 years the AT&T brand has stood for excellence in product quality and service," said Vic Pelson, AT&T group executive and president, Communications Services. "The new AT&T Universal Card carries with it the same commitment to excellence. "We've done our homework. Our customers have been telling us they wanted the convenience of a single card, a card without an annual fee, and a card that has the value, quality and reliability of AT&T." The AT&T Universal Card will be issued by Universal Bank and processed by Total System Services, Inc., both subsidiaries of Synovus Financial Corp. All three companies are based in Columbus, Ga. AT&T said the card will be accepted for purchases at more than 7 million locations and for calls from 200 million telephones worldwide. Customers also can use the card to obtain cash at more than 300,000 banks and automated teller machines nationwide and abroad. AT&T said the card can be used to make long-distance calls within the United States and to 271 countries and areas worldwide. AT&T card members will be able to call back to the United States from 125 different countries, and in 65 countries callers can be directly connected to an AT&T operator through USADirect(sm). Card members can call toll-free to reach an AT&T service representative 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help resolve problems or assist with emergencies. AT&T said disputed transactions will be removed from the customer's statement and resolved quickly. AT&T said it will guarantee that card members receive error-free service. "Under our AT&T Universal Card Service Guarantee, if there is ever a problem, and it's our error, we'll fix it, explain why it happened and tell the customer what we are going to do to prevent it from happening again," said Kahn. If a customer tells AT&T it has not met its commitment, AT&T will send the customer a $10 certificate, which can be used toward any AT&T Universal Card charges. Under the service guarantee, AT&T will serve as the customer's representative in all disputes with merchants. AT&T will cover most retail purchases for loss, theft and accidental damage for 90 days, and will double the manufacturer's original warranty when merchandise is purchased using the AT&T Universal Card. Automatic collision damage reimbursement will be available when rental cars are charged with the AT&T Universal Card. In addition, automatic travel accident insurance up to $250,000 on any common carrier -- including airlines, ships, trains and buses -- will be provided when tickets are purchased on the card. If lost or stolen, the AT&T Universal Card will be replaced within 48 hours in the United States and in most international locations. Any AT&T operator will be able to connect the customer with an AT&T Universal Card service representative. AT&T said emergency charge and calling card capability, along with access to cash, will be available if needed during the time the replacement card is being delivered. "Our goal is to provide service to our customers in a manner unprecedented in the credit card industry," said Kahn. To apply for the card, customers should call toll-free 1-800-662-7759. # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:35:55 EST From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <5137@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cgch!wtho@relay.eu.net (Tom Hofmann) writes: > | 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? Er, no, but is a call from Athens (in the EC) to Lisbon (in the EC) going to go via Tunis (most definitely *not* in the EC)? His point was that *between* countries, calls are usually forced to "bottleneck" into well-defined country-to-country channels (this is a not-so-good thing). *Within* countries, calls can usually be efficiently routed any way the phone company chooses to (this is a good thing). The bigger the country, the more calls that fall into the latter category instead of the former. It would be good if the entire EC could act as a single country in this respect and route traffic as if it had one single integrated telecom system, but (unsurprisingly) politics currently makes this impractical, even if the technology doesn't. > | 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). Again, you miss the point. Imagine each state in the US having its own dialing plan and country code, and each one having to negotiate its own bilateral channel arrangement with each and every other state .... > |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)? How about it? All recent phone books that I've seen in the US a) don't list 905 as an area code, and b) DO list +52 as Mexico's country code. If the 905 hack still works as an alternative way to dial Mexico, it's soon being phased out. (BTW, Mexico *is* in North America. It's just not in the North American Numbering Plan.) > |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 disagree. The vast majority of calls are *within* area codes. Adding new digits to a number requires *everyone* dialing that number, both from within and from outside its area code, to change the way they dial. Merely changing the area code only affects calls from outside the code. Not to mention the fact that when an area code is split here in the NANP, about half the numbers typically get to stay in the existing code and don't have to change at all. Compare with, say Japan, where *every* number in code 3 (Tokyo) had to change to accomodate the new prefix digit. > |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 guess it depends on how fixed-length numbers are defined. As a recent poster from the UK has described, Britain is moving to a system with a fixed length for the *total* number (area code + local number). Once it is fully implemented, all numbers will have a total of 9 digits (not counting the 0 prefix [%]): either 2 digit area code with 7 digit local number, or else 3 digit area code with 6 digit local number. France and the UK together have about 120 million people, which is more that a third of the combined population of the EC & EFTA. A significant fraction indeed. > (I am not sure --- has Belgium such a fixed number length?) I don't think so, unless it's of the British "total digits" flavor. My phone book shows Belgian codes with both 1 and 2 digits. [%] {I know, Britons will argue that the 0 should be counted and that numbers are properly a total of ten digits. But I maintain that the 0 is really an inter-area-code access prefix, NOT an integral part of the number, for the simple reason that it isn't used in international dialing. If it *were* an integral part of the number, people would be listing their numbers as (for example) "+44 081 xxx xxxx" instead of "+44 81 xxx xxxx". Contrast this with the Soviet Union, where the 0 really is part of the number: to call Moscow, you really do dial "+7 095 xxx xxxx".} Bob Goudreau 1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau ------------------------------ From: joymrmn!root@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Hotal/Motel Charges Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:35:55 EST I too administer a hotel PBX and am quite interested in what people have to say about phone service and surcharges in a hotel or motel. We currently have the following rates in place at a hotel located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (If you are coming to town send me e-mail and I will be happy to reply with the name and rates etc.): Local Calls: 60 cents Credit Card Calls: 35 cent surcharge Direct Dial Calls: 45% over and above the long distance rates (Direct Dial) that Bell has programmed into our call detail recorder machine. 411: 75 cents 800 Calls: 60 cents 900 Calls: One dollar per minute for all calls. The CDR can't distinguish between different numbers. Some hotels that I have seen in the US give away calls like locals and 800 and Credit card calls but then turn around and charge full operator assisted rates for any direct dialed call. There is presently in Canada no concept such as alternate carrier so there is no danger for a guest to get beat on extra hidden charges. Some other random comments on the subject: The call detail recorder does not have answer supervision even though the PBX (an SL-1 or Meridian) and the Call Detail Recorder are both provided by Bell and I know for a fact that the PBX is supposed to be able to support it. The lack of answer supervision causes us no end of grief particularly on international calls with their long setup times and higher frequency of call blockage. We have set the CDR call setup defaults high enough to the point where we actually lose a small percentage of short calls. Because Bell considers that we are resellers, we are prohibited from using Outwats and Foreign Exchange lines in a least cost routing system to route calls from guest rooms over. Has anyone any information that would be relevant to this situation in Canada? We are presently upgrading the phones in our rooms to provide two different sets in the main room with two lines each and one single line phone in the bathroom (You never know when the important call is going to come in!). Since the two line sets operate on a single pair digital line, we are also wiring an extra analog pair near the desk on a modular jack for Fax machines (available through the Front Desk) and Computers (we even have one or two of those for you to use). What other features (such as Direct Inward Dial, Do Not Disturb, Message Lights etc.) do people think would be useful? Marcel D. Mongeon E-Mail: uunet!joymrmn!root Tel : +1 416 527 5071 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 08:31:38 -0500 From: Steve Elias Subject: Cellular Phone Question Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 10:06:13 -0500 From: Steve Elias Is there a limit on the number of active subscribers to a cellular phone system? Is it possible to get "trunk busy" signals when dialing to or from cellular phones. A friend of mine pointed out that there must be a limited number of frequencies available, so the number of simulataneous calls within a cell must be limited. What's the limit? ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com, eli@pws.bull.com ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax 508 671 7447 ------------------------------ Subject: CUE vrs. Skypager Date: Tue Mar 27 22:39:56 1990 From: Allen Gwinn I used a Skypager for quite a while and found the coverage unacceptable. I was unable to receive pages 4 miles south of the geographic center of Nashville, TN. In addition, they have practically no regional coverage whatsoever. I am currently using a pager from CUE Nationwide Paging. At first, their coverage was poor inside buildings and such, but they seem to have cured all of that with the latest release of their pager (thats been out for about a year). Their overall coverage is quite a bit better (I think they cover about 5 times the area that SkyTel does) than Skypager in my opinion, and their cost can be about 1/2 as much. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #213 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15293; 29 Mar 90 0:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27883; 28 Mar 90 23:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14655; 28 Mar 90 22:10 CST Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:41:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #214 BCC: Message-ID: <9003282141.ab28600@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:40:25 CST Volume 10 : Issue 214 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: US Sprint [Bruce E. Howells] Re: US Sprint [Rob Gutierrez] Re: US Sprint [Joel M. Snyder] Re: US Sprint [Bryan M. Richardson] Sprint Card Giveaways [Andrew Boardman] Re: Choke Lines [Bryan M. Rrichardson] Re: Choke Lines [Dan Ross] Re: Information Wanted on CNA [sak@athena.mit.edu] Re: Can This Be True? (ground-starting pay phones) [Bruce Perens] Re: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis [David Schanen] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Bryan M. Richardson] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Ed Ravin] Re: MCI Plans [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Ken Dykes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:55:39 EST From: beh@bu-pub.bu.edu Subject: Re: US Sprint Organization: Boston University According to the alleged customer service people at Sprint... They do their own billing directly, except when you're between accounts. While you're getting a new account, they bill through the local telco, with a page right after the AT+T page. Quite surprised me one month to have to pay them three ways: Check to them on the old account, check to them on the new account, check to NJBell for the 3 calls Sprint billed through when they weren't quite sure who I was. Didn't try to get into much detail with them, but I'd assume it would be cheaper for them to do their own billing than shove it through the local BOC. Bruce E. Howells, beh@bu-pub.bu.edu | engnbsu@buacca (BITNet) Just a random Engineering undergrad... ------------------------------ From: Rob Gutierrez Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 28 Mar 90 08:06:13 GMT Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC [Am *I* the ONLY MCI expert around here?!?] wallyk@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes in V.10, Iss. 212, Msg 2 of 9 > A few weeks back I found myself midway between Portland and Seattle > without my FONCARD. The sign on the payphone said LD was assigned to > MCI,....... > .... I entered my AT&T > number assuming it would either be rejected if really MCI, or accepted > if it was US West. The call went through and ended normally.... > This month's US West bill had a page with MCI's logo and the charge > for that call on it! Question 1: > Why did MCI accept AT&T's calling card number? It wasn't an AT&T number it accepted, technically. It was an LEC number it accepted. Remember, you said 'U.S. Worst..' (err, sorry) ... 'U.S. West card'. And U.S.W. makes their card database available to database resellers for use by your friends and mine...COCOTS! (actually, AOS's). Question 2: > Why did MCI bill for this call? Because MCI subscribes to these same database-resellers that the AOS's use, and then uses 10XXX random billing to bill you for the call. Note that this is the ONLY instance that MCI would accept an LEC calling card (from a preassigned payphone or 10XXX dialed payphone call). MCI won't accept LEC (BOC) calling cards from their own calling-card network (950-1022/800-950- 1022). I love responding to this question because it allows me to remind everybody that MCI uses IBM PS/2 Model 50's (80286 PC's) for BOC card verification. (Their own cards are verified by seperate mini-mainframes). Oh well. Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations Center (NSI-NOC). ------------------------------ From: "Joel M. Snyder" Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 28 Mar 90 10:01:41 GMT Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't Here's an anecdote which shows one of the particular frailties of the combined billing agreements that LD companies have with the LEC: Recently, a friend found bills by a LD company that she had never used (not her 1+ carrier) for calls to Saudi Arabia in her monthly phone bills. She contacted the LD company (wasted time!) and informed them of their error, and they told her not to pay that portion of her local phone bill. But they didn't tell the LEC that this was OK, so the LEC considered her in default on part of her bill. This might have been OK for one month, but whatever/whomever was generating these calls from a different long distance company to her phone number continued for several months. And she wasted more and more time dealing with a company she had no interest in working with (that's why she chose AT&T, to avoid this crap), and getting greater and greater harrassment from the LEC, for no good reason. This was not a case of a phone person playing around; there was this company from nowhere creating data that caused US West to want to turn off her service. Had she not left town (for other reasons...), the situation might have come to that. As far as I know, though, there is open correspondence between her and the other two parties involved (US West and the LD carrier) on this issue -- 9 months after she turned off phone service entirely. jms ------------------------------ From: "bryan.m.richardson" Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 28 Mar 90 21:43:50 GMT Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5719@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Gutierrez writes: >> >Why >> >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if >> >they can, why don't they? Back in the Bell System days, the network was designed to do billing at the originating switch (the central office). At divestiture, AT&T lost all of the central offices, and thus, did not have the capability to bill. Instead, AT&T contracts out to the RBOCs to do its POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) billing. This is generally considered MORE expensive than if AT&T did it itself. Bryan Richardson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 14:14:41 EST From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Sprint card-giveaways Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating In article <5631@accuvax.nwu.edu> Brandon wrote: >U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur >Radio Assoc. Hamfest today. Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here! They're free!" One just writes down one's address and telephone number (no identification is asked for) and they hand you a working "Fon Card." Just look around Herald square (33rd and 6th and B'way) around the time buisness types are getting out of work and you'll see them, next time you happen to be in New York. Sightings have also been reported at 42nd and 5th, and outside of the Citicorp building. (Perhaps they're not aware that the monthls meetings of 2600 Magazine people are in the Citicorp building...) These card giveaways must do wonders for the Sprint marketing statistics... 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: "bryan.m.richardson" Subject: Re: "Choke" Lines Date: 28 Mar 90 21:36:50 GMT Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5524@accuvax.nwu.edu> beh@bu-pub.bu.edu (Bruce E. Howells) writes: >I'm wondering what sort of hardware is used for these - special >switches dedicated 24 hours, or do they move the higher capacity stuff >around? I would expect that the more sophisticated switches would have network management controls continually applied to these prefixes, and are gapped at each originating switch within the LATA. This would work by only allowing one call in thirty (or one every x seconds) to even attempt to complete. The remainder would immediately get busy signal. You can usually "hear" how far you're getting. If you get busy immediately after dialing the last digit, you're being blocked at the CO. Similar controls are applied within the AT&T network -- it doesn't make sense to route a call across the country to get a busy signal when those resources could be used for something else. The SF earthquake is a good example. Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories ------------------------------ From: Dan Ross Subject: Re: Choke Lines Date: 28 Mar 90 18:46:00 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept In article <5636@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 206, Message 8 of 11 >... The best example is when a radio station is giving away $10,000.00 to >the 15th caller. >In some instances, this caused severe problems with the switch serving >the station, and other subscribers had trouble calling 911 or even >getting dial tone. Around 1987, an Austin, Texas, station was giving away a simply huge amount of money (I think it was $100,000) to the 150th caller. Every day, they'd run through several callers (they kept a running count), with the possibility of going ALL the WAY to 150. Finally, one day they decided to go ALL THE WAY, and of course, I tried to call. I lived in the dorm at the time at the U of Texas, and I couldn't get a dial tone on the University's PBX without a 5- to 60-second delay; and when I did, dialing an outside line (with 9) gave me the "all lines are busy" message from the PBX. The adjacent dorm housed >2800 students (>1400 phones), so I can imagine why. It made the papers in a big way -- as well as sending "Key-103" (KEYI-FM) to court for causing most of the central city's phone system to complete only a small percentage of calls. All the radio station call-in lines had the same prefix, so I assumed they used 'choke lines,' but either they weren't actually choke lines, or it was just too much for them. The radio station was given a court order regarding how it could conduct call-in contests, limiting the amount of time they could accept calls, etc. Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ..!uwvax!dross ------------------------------ From: sak@athena.mit.edu Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 07:02:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CNA What's the number to dial in the greater Boston area for CNA? ------------------------------ From: Bruce Perens Subject: Re: Can This Be True? (ground-starting pay phones) Date: 27 Mar 90 18:33:44 GMT Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California Some locations have armored pay phones connected to wimpy external bells. One can simply unscrew the cover on the external bell, and complete the connection there (Of course I've got lots of dimes now, but I was a kid once). Of course, now that one can put an arbitrarily sophisticated program in the C.O., it shouldn't be to hard to track down abusers, but who wants to round up a bunch of kids? ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis Date: 27 Mar 90 20:14:47 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing We just recently had problems in a suburb of Seattle, I haven't been able to locate a an article as it happened several days ago. But I heard the tail end of a recap on the local news here, they said that one person's life could have been saved had the service been available, and that it had been repaired by ATT. -Dave ------------------------------ From: "bryan.m.richardson" Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Date: 28 Mar 90 21:26:27 GMT Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5518@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >I've been waiting to see any replies. Unfortunately, nothing has yet >shown up. Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's >equipment?" I agree with the posting that suggested calling the repair number for the local telco. It may get me "belabored ... with a rubber chicken" but it makes the most sense. Among the ESS(tm) offices, I believe that 1A-ESS and 5ESS remain as the AT&T switching products acting as central office equipment. The 4 ESS switch remains as the vehicle for the AT&T long distance network. This switch provides dial tone for a VERY FEW customers (old, "dumb" PBXs directly connected). I must question the ability to detect the type of office by "Type of dial tone" as suggested. I did have the opportunity to experience a step-by-step in northern Minnesota where you could hear the clunking. Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories ------------------------------ From: Ed Ravin Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Reply-To: Ed Ravin Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 21:25:50 GMT Some exchanges have a "verification number", which reads back a recording of either the exchange NPA and prefix (for an electromechanical switch) or some arbitrary message (that usually includes some hint of what equipment they're running). Try exchanges in New York City with a 9901 suffix -- (212) 601-9901 for example. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 1990 7:04:44 MST From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: Re: MCI Plans From: Gary Segal > I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America. > Here are the details: > Plan Name: Preimer (I think) The plan is called MCI PrimeTime. Hours are M-F 7pm-8am; 12 am Sat-5pm Sun; Sun 11pm-8am Mon. You can call anywhere in US, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands. Non-plan calls are discounted 10%. Plan can be extended to cover in-state calls for additional $1.50/month. Plan applies only to calls dialed directly from home. ------------------------------ From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Date: 28 Mar 90 11:55:07 GMT Reply-To: Ken Dykes Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo In article <5724@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9 >extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the >lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously >off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional Well even if the off-hook phone didn't melt down or something, I suspect the sound in the earpiece would be sufficiently loud that operating companies would worry about lawsuits over hearing damage. ...and several milliseconds later something would melt anyway :-) Seriously, I suspect the old 500/2500 series could survive, but cheapie free-with-magazine-subscription phones, etc and off-hook asnwering machines may suffer a few silicon junction traumas. - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@watmath.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #214 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17579; 29 Mar 90 1:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26575; 29 Mar 90 0:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27883; 28 Mar 90 23:15 CST Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:49:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #215 BCC: Message-ID: <9003282249.ab11965@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:49:09 CST Volume 10 : Issue 215 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Universal Card and Other Long Distance Companies [Bill Huttig] Re: The Card [Peter Weiss] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [David Smallberg] Nicad Memory [Steve Fineberg] Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? [Steve Forrette] Teenage Tax [Jon Solomon] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [B. Templeton] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [P. Hutmacher] Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Ronald L. Fletcher] Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Tony Olekshy] Re: US Sprint [Leland F. Derbenwick] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Stephen Tell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: AT&T Universal Card and Other Long Distance Companies Date: 28 Mar 90 16:19:47 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I was just thinking about AT&T's Visa and Mastercards. With MCI billing to credit cards you can have your MCI calls billed to your AT&T Visa/MasterCard. But are the calling card numbers on the card restriced to AT&T? For example in Florida all Bell/AT&T card #'s can be used with 10xxx +0 + number or 0+ calls (as a matter of fact you must use a Bell/ATT card. Since the card number will be issued by SNET will the card work with non ATT 0+ calls? Bill ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 28 Mar 1990 15:15:59 EST From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: The Card I just applied for the above credit card. They wanted to know the number of years at my current residence/job, address of home/job, my bank name, my approx. salary, my mother's maiden name, how I heard about the 800 number. Seemed pretty painless. /Pete ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: 29 Mar 90 01:54:02 GMT Reply-To: David Smallberg Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department At UCLA around 1977, a DTMF-to-text converter was hooked up to an incoming UNIX tty line, with the tty output going to a Votrax. Who needed a modem? When you called the number, everything that would have appeared on the screen was "read" to you, and you keyed in your login, password, etc. at the spoken UNIX prompts. (A = 21, B = 22, etc.; I forget what newline, blank, control characters, etc. were). Of course the pronunciations were frequently awful, so you sometimes would run some command repeatedly until you understood the output. David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 11:48 EST From: FINBERG@ebvxcl.draper.com Subject: Nicad Memory In a recent Digest Tad Cook claimed Nicad Memory was a "myth". I beg to differ! Memory is a real problem with Nicad batteries. The problem occurs on long charge hardly ever/never discharge cycles. I have rescued more HT220 batteries from police service than I can lift! To lose memory you really have to abuse the battery by most Ham's standards, ie. really long charge cycles with practically no use. Fortunately the PD threw them to the ham club (when we ran HT220s) and they were easily rescued by cycling them a few times. Well worth doing when a new pack is $50 and you are a starving grad student. Almost worth doing for a portable telephone where the replacement cells are about $1.50 each. Further the "resistance" of each cell actually goes DOWN as it approaches full charge, for this reason you can NOT safely charge Nicads with a voltage source but should use a current source for non temperature monitored charging. Simple deep discharging of battery packs is worse than developing memory. If there is no mechanism to stop the discharge at about 1V per cell, it is likely that one or more cells will die before the others and get reverse charged. The remaining live cells tend to reverse charge any "dead " cells. Reverse charge is a very dangerous state, any reversed cell is very likely to short out and become unchargeable. Once shorted it takes heroic measures to rescue a cell; ie, one must dump huge currents (>10A) from a big cap through the cell to burn out the short. Such rescued cells tend to be less reliable !! Battery packs should be closely monitored on discharge or each cell should be discharge individually. What is the answer? For memory considerations run the battery down and store it relatively discharged, but for short prevention never let it get fully discharged. The importers seem to agree; they ship radio batteries over here about 10% charged. Read the notice ... Must be fully charged fully before use. All of the above comes from extensive experiments with Nicads both for ham radio and various "state of the art" energy storage systems here at MIT. We have tested and consulted with many manufactures including Sayno, GE, Varta and Gould. Most of my experience is from about 6 years ago, and recently some manufactures have introduced new designs to minimize memory, I guess I will believe it when I get a chance to test them, Back then, until presented with measurement on their cells several manufactures swore it wasn't a problem. BTW at the time Sayno had the most efficient cells by a fair margin. 73 Steve F W1GSL ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 22:56:23 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? Organization: University of California, Berkeley >[Moderator's Note: Actually, it is illegal now for COCOTS to block 10xxx >access, and the ruling came from the FCC. PT] A couple of months ago I had a long chat with an FCC attorney. He reminded me of what should have been obvious - that this ruling only applies to inter-state calls. The blocking policy for in-state calls is a state PUC issue, and unfortunately, mine (California) allows it, at least for the time being. It is interesting to note that every COCOT in California that I have found to block does not make the inter/intra-state distinction. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 18:45:53 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: Teenage Tax Yes. A teenage tax for the usage to pay for the usage. A modem tax too...... Anything but per minute unless the rates are OK. Right now per minute charges would have me subsidizing all the phones in Somerville with my modem usage. jsol ------------------------------ From: Brad Templeton Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Date: 27 Mar 90 18:08:31 GMT Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. So many people have pointed out teen-agers. Yes, there are extreme cases which generated that stereotype, but we had 4 teens in my family and the use was nowhere near constant. Teens do indeed have much longer calls than other users, but they don't match a multi-line BBS. If you believe that phone charges should be based on "ability to pay" to some similar rule, then I agree, a hobby BBS could well be in the lower rate class. (Although one might argue that BBSs are mostly run by the middle classes, certainly in the early days it could be classed as one of the more expensive hobbies.) Also, if the whole system is to be based on outgoing patterns only, then again a BBS is in the lower class. But the system isn't done this way, or radio stations wouldn't have choke exchanges (see other thread) etc. Indeed, you might have to think about the tougher reverse, which is charging more for modem callers. Of course, the easy solution is to charge timed message units for local calls. But nobody likes that. So we need a good system of charging for fixed rate local calling. I believe such a system should still be based roughly on the amount of load you put on the telco. You can measure incoming load or outgoing load, probable patterns of use, time-based usage patterns and a number of other factors. All I'm really saying is that a BBS, particularly a multi-line, is going to tend towards the higher end. Not the highest, and with most of them, largely in the evening, which is a mitigating factor. As such, I just wanted to point out that it may be a bit greedy to argue for the lowest usage class for such systems. (Perhaps more than one class is needed to make unlimited local calling work fairly.) Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ From: paul@pro-europa.cts.com (Paul Hutmacher) Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Date: 27 Mar 90 09:36:07 GMT In-Reply-To: message from brad@looking.on.ca > I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the > Telco's positions somewhat on this. A lot of folks not directly involved would sometimes have this train of thought Brad. However, since I am somewhat involved in the litigation with SWB I'll tell you the real reason we're up in arms about the whole deal: Business rates for bulletin boards are not covered in the tariff. Telephone lines terminating into residences are by the tariff to be billed at residential rates. How we use the service is not the issue here. If SWB wants to take a residential class and change it to commercial then they need to follow the rules and have a rate hearing and try and get their new tariff installed legally. Paul Hutmacher | crash!pro-europa!paul | Send lawyers, guns, and money, P.O. Box 66046 | paul@pro-europa.cts.com | the phone company's run amok! Houston, TX 77266 | 713/526-0714 3/12/24/9600 | - Warren Zevon (kinda sorta) ------------------------------ From: Ronald L Fletcher Subject: Re: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch Date: 28 Mar 90 16:15:55 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5692@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dynasys!jessea@uunet.uu.net (Jesse W. Asher) writes: > Here's where the problem is. I used cu to call this number and input > the four digit number to gain access to the 3B2. It connects to the > 3B2, but all characters are turned to upper case with a backslash in > front of all characters which are supposed to be upper case. It's > very strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch > connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:". If you type something > in, it too is in uppercase. Does anyone know these symptoms and have > any suggestions on what to do about them? Any help would be > gratefully accepted. Thanx. This is caused by the UNIX(r) OS on the 3b2 and is not specific to the NTI switch. What is happening is the first input line the 3b2 is receiving is in ALL CAPS so it assumes the sending terminal is only capable of generating upper-case characters. This causes the iuclc and xcase I/O parameters to be set (see stty(1)) and the entire session will be held in upper-case. This goes back to the days when some terminals/OS's only worked in upper-case. It is likely the data call transfer device or the receiving modem is generating these upper-case characters and you will probably need to get the switch administrator involved to get it cured. I have seen this behavior in some modems that are set to both dial and receive calls. There is USUALLY an easy work-around. If you type control-d as the FIRST character at the LOGIN: prompt, the system will respawn a new getty with the default I/O parameters. This should return a login: prompt and you then login normally. On some systems this may drop the line and you'll be right back to where you started from. Hope this helps, Ron Fletcher att!mtgzy!rlf ------------------------------ From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) Subject: Re: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch Date: 28 Mar 90 18:15:30 GMT Reply-To: tony@oha.UUCP Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In message <5692@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dynasys!jessea@uunet.uu.net (Jesse W. Asher) writes: > ...strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch > connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:". If you type something > in, it too is in uppercase. Unix switches into upper case login: when a login name is entered in upper case, and transliterates real uppercase into the \X sequence. I would seem as though the switch is talking some upper-case to the getty running on the port and confusing it. You should be able to enter ^D (that's control-D) to the \LOGIN: prompt and get a new Login: prompt. The way this works is that once getty, which is what runs waiting for someone to connect to the port, thinks it has a connection, it fires off the login program. The login program then lets you make some number of tries at logging in. If you succeed, login fires off your shell. If not, login dies and a new getty is created to monitor the port. The ^D character tells the login program there is no more input to come, so it exits, and the new getty (not having seen the stuff from the switch) talks to you in not-confused mode. Your mileage may vary. Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.UUCP). ------------------------------ From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 28 Mar 90 22:31:00 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5717@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telotech!bsa@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > It may depend on the willingness of the BOC. Here in northeast Ohio, > AT&T and Sprint bill through Ohio Bell, and MCI will begin doing so > within the next few months. It varies from place to place. Even though "everyone knows" that AT&T bills through the local phone company, AT&T does its own billing for service in the Minneapolis area. -- Speaking strictly for myself, -- Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ -- lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Date: 28 Mar 90 17:14:45 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article <5724@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9 >In response to the Moderator's comment: [about ringing an off-hook phone] >I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical >switching in the phone, Not all phones have any switching. The ringer and its series capacitor are connected directly across tip and ring in some (many?) phones I've seen. > but what about other phones on the same >extension? If you send the correct signal (70 volts AC??) through the >lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously >off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional >phone that was off-hook? Now that I think of it, I've seen this happen. The day after Duke cut over to a 5ESS from the old electromechanical NX-1E the software was still set up wrong on all the student lines. I saw it happen on a friend's phone; he couldn't get any real calls, but once the phone rang, he picked it up, and it kept ringing. Or maybe he picked up the phone and it started to ring. The phone worked fine when they fixed the switch. I looked things over and it did in fact go off-hook (not a stuck hookswitch or anything like that). The phone was a generic wall-mount unit by ITT, non-electronic except for the IC touch-tone pad. For a day after cut, no one could make calls (no dialtone, but incoming calls were fine), and for another day we couldn't recieve them (but could dial out). I recall being quite amused after getting home at 3 a.m. from watching the cutover and picking up the phone to find no dialtone (just DC). Steve Tell tell@wsmail.cs.unc.edu CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #215 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22546; 29 Mar 90 3:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05736; 29 Mar 90 2:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09927; 29 Mar 90 1:22 CST Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 0:17:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #216 BCC: Message-ID: <9003290017.ab12982@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Mar 90 00:15:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 216 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Privacy [David Gast] Overhearing cellular calls [Joel B Levin] Cellular phone recordings [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] Re: Cellular Programming [Norman Yarvin] +071 and +081 in London (+01 split) ["Joel B. Levin"] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:17:31 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Telephone Privacy CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) is working to protect telephone privacy. I am forwarding two articles written by Marc Rotenberg of CPSR. These articles show how the telephone companies before the MFJ were concerned about privacy in spite of comments to the contrary. My apologies for the length, but I feel it is important to get information from a knowledgable source. Mr. Rotenberg is also a member of the Bar. [ I don't know who typed what; I am only forwarding them with permission. ] ===== 1 ===== Telephone Privacy 1 Dr. Bonnie Guiton March 14, 1990 Dr. Bonnie Guiton US Office of Consumer Affairs Department of Health and Human Services 1725 I St., NW, Suite 1009 Washington, DC 20201 Dear Dr. Guiton: I am writing to you regarding the Office of Consumer Affairs' draft principles for telecommunications privacy. CPSR supports the general thrust of the proposal, and offers these suggestions in the spirit of ensuring that the intent of the principles will be achieved in practice. Before turning to our specific recommendations, there is a fundamental point about telephone privacy that should not be lost in the current discussion about Telephone Transaction Generated Information (TTGI) and new phone technologies: a telephone call is presumptively a confidential communication. Statutory and constitutional law place barriers around a phone call to keep out third parties and to preserve the expectation of privacy of the parties to the communication. Even for the purposes of a lawful criminal investigation, the surreptitious collection of information generated by a phone communication is tightly regulated. And the privacy policies of the phone company, prior to deregulation, reflected this underlying concern for the confidentiality of all phone communications. Perhaps the clearest statement in support of telephone privacy can be found in the original Federal Communications Act of 1934: No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communications and divulge or publish the existence, contents, sub- stance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. (Section 605). As the Congress recognized in 1934, telephone privacy means more than simply protecting the contents of the communication from unlawful disclosure. The confidentiality of phone communications extends as well to toll record information, and the broader category of TTGI. This data reveals the identities of the parties to a phone call. The aggregation of call detail records and other personal information would provide a detailed dossier of a person's close friends, business associates, doctors, lawyers, creditors, political associations, and so on. Therefore, the distinction between the content of a communication and the transactional data generated by the communication is not sufficient to protect the privacy of phone callers. The categories are inextricably related. There is a good reason that the law, traditional industry policy, and even the design of the phone instrument protect the privacy of telephone communications. Confidentiality promotes trust. As with a privileged communication between a doctor and a patient or a husband and a wife, confidentiality encourages frank, open discussion and the sharing of intimate facts that create ties and strengthen human bonds. New information collection practices, if not properly regulated, could erode the essential value of phone communication. Virtually every phone call contains information that would be valuable to third parties. Any conveyor of the information could sell it to a third party. But such activities, once they become apparent to phone customers, will likely drive phone customers to other forms of communication and undermine the utility of the phone system. As Judge Richard Posner warned in The Economics of Justice: "People who lack conversational privacy must learn to express them- selves precisely and circumspectively, since many of their conversations are bound to be overheard, creating abundant possibilities of recrimination and misunderstanding." (p. 172). The sale of TTGI, which would disclose intimate facts, may similarly cause phone customers to be more cautious in who they call, or to avoid the use of the telephone altogether. Therefore, telephone service providers must adhere to the highest standards of privacy protection, recognizing in particular that, unlike other records systems, telephone records are an extensive and detailed collection of our daily activities. Where the service provider operates as a common carrier, it has the additional obligation, by grant of its status, not to deprive phone consumers of privacy rights that cannot otherwise be recaptured. As a threshold matter, telephone service providers should ensure that consumers retain control over the disclosure of personal information regardless of the technology involved. Additional Telephone Privacy Principles, based on the Code of Fair Information Practices, follow: 1. Consumers should have the right to inspect, correct, and amend their TTGI records. 2. Telephone service providers must assure the accuracy, reliability, completeness, and integrity of personal information. Consumers should be entitled to damage awards for any disclosure of personal information that causes harm. 3. Telephone service providers should ensure that personal information is only used for its intended purpose and must take precautions to prevent misuses of the information. 4. Telephone service providers should request only that informa- tion which is necessary to provide the service to the consumer. 5. Telephone service providers should reduce the collection, use, and storage of personal information to the maximum extent possible. 6. Telephone service providers should establish and publicize comprehensive business practices for the protection of personal information. 7. TTGI that was obtained for one purpose should not be used, or made available for sale or exchange to third parties for other purposes without the consent of the phone customer. Simply noti- fying the phone customer of the disclosures practices without providing enforceable rights, including the right to prohibit disclosure, will not protect privacy. In those instances where the phone customer agrees to disclose information, the following principles should apply: a) When TTGI information is sold or exchanged for other purposes, consumers must be able to find out to whom their TTGI information has been sold or exchanged. b) Consumers must be able to opt out completely from having their TTGI information sold or exchanged. For ANI services, all consumers must have the ability to block the display of their phone numbers including calls to 800 or 900 numbers. c) A third party which purchases TTGI from a telephone service provider and subsequently sells or exchanges that information with a fourth party is responsible for notifying the service provider of the sale or exchange. d) Telephone service providers must not transfer an unlisted or unpublished telephone number unless a consumer gives prior consent. e) Consumers should suffer no cost or diminishment of service as a result of exercising their privacy rights, such as having their name removed from lists that are transferred to others. This further means that there should be no additional cost for a consumer who chooses not to disclosure a phone number. We hope that these suggestions will assist the Office of Consumer Affairs in your efforts to protect the privacy and confidentiality of telephone communications. Sincerely yours, Marc Rotenberg, Director CPSR Washington Office ===== 2 ===== [On Privacy and Phone Deregulation] The sale of personal information generated by phone calls may be the most significant privacy development since the deregulation of the phone system. Caller ID is only one aspect of the problem. The sale of Telephone Transaction Generated Information (TTGI), or simply toll records (the audit trail generated by phone communications), may now be sold to direct marketing firms and used by the phone companies for purposes unrelated to billing verification. To understand the dramatic departure from traditional phone company practices, note this excerpt from a 1984 article "Protection of Personal Data in the United States," by William Caming (The Information Society, pp.117-119, vol, 3., no. 2 (1984)). Mr. Caming was for many years general counsel for AT&T. "In testimony before the Privacy Commission, I said in behalf of AT&T that we unreservedly pledged ourselves to undertake promptly a thorough reexamination of our policies and practices impacting upon privacy to ensure that the Bell System's commitment to the spirit of "Fair information" principles was being fully realized. . . . "Over the years, the Bell System has staunchly supported the concept that the protection of its customers' communications and business records is of singular importance. Time and time again, we have stressed to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission and on other public forums that the preservation of privacy is a basic concept in our business. . . . . ". . . toll billing record are corporate records maintained in the ordinary course of business as necessary substantiation for the charges billed to customers. These records are extremely sensitive since they, in essence, constitute a virtual log of one's daily communications. They are generally kept for a limited period of time to serve the needs of the business and to conform to statutory and regulatory requirements. They are normally destroyed as a matter of business routine at the conclusion of the prescribed retention period, usually six months. "Access to these records is rigorously restricted. They are not released except pursuant to subpoena, administrative summons, or court order valid on its face. . . . Exceptions to the foregoing policies are extremely few in number." An upcoming article in the CPSR Newsletter by Jeff Johnson address some of the privacy issues related to caller ID. Marc Rotenberg, Director CPSR Washington Office. -------------------------------------------------------- David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Subject: Overhearing Cellular Calls Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:23:55 -0500 From: Joel B Levin The following excerpt was in the (moderated) misc.security newsgroup, and I guess, the security mailing list. The person quoted below met with two local FBI agents "to discuss computer, information and network security", to enable his organization to be prepared in case of security problems. He summarized this meeting for the network and one interesting (and relevant to this list) tidbit was included: From: topper%a1.relay@UPENN.EDU ("Frank Topper") Subject: Meeting with the FBI Message-ID: <9003270541.AA01498@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> A questionable activity, but not illegal, is when a hacker (or employee) reads files they are not supposed to have seen. Not so related to universities is the new wrinkle provided by cellular phones. In this case the transmission travels through the airwaves to a hardwire transmission point. It is not illegal to listen in to the part broadcasted (although, a recent note on the SECURITY list mentioned that it was illegal to disclose an overheard conversation). [apparently summarizing the remarks of the agents --/JBL] While this is an informal summary of an informal discussion, the last sentence does seem to contradict what we have been hearing lately about cellular (as opposed to cordless) telephone conversations. You may find the entire article of interest. It was written by Frank Topper Information Analyst University of Pennsylvania. /JBL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 1990 5:24:58 MST From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: Cellular Phone Recordings Yesterday I dialed a long distance call to a cellular phone which was answered after about four rings by a recording which said something like "Thanks for using Cellular One. The mobile customer you have dialed has left the vehicle or traveled beyond the service area. Please try again later." Will I be charged for this call? Why do they provide these recordings? I would prefer to get the usual no answer. Also, why do they answer with the recording after a short 4 rings instead of 10? Thanks. [Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to mobile phones. By playing the recording to you after four rings, the assumption is you will disconnect sooner and make a circuit available to someone else. If the phone *was* turned on and within the service area, then it would ring fifty times if you waited that long. When the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and airtime for them. The reason for four rings is because it takes about that long for the base to query all the cells. PT] ------------------------------ From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: Cellular Programming Date: 28 Mar 90 22:22:19 GMT Reply-To: Norman Yarvin Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 In article <5700@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Gutierrez writes: >Nowadays, ESN's are now hard-soldered ROMs on the board or (lately) >burned into the CPU of the phone. The only thing you can do is change >the phone number [...] Burning the number into the CPU of the phone will not block anybody serious, unless the CPU has a lock bit (so that one can not read out the internal ROM.) A while ago, there was an article in alt.hackers by someone who had taken apart his cellular telephone and unsoldered the CPU. He dumped the internal ROM, disassembled it, and modified the code to add a scanner mode. Then he soldered in a socket in place of the CPU, bought another processor of the same variety, programmed it with the modified code, and placed it in the socket. While this takes some skill and knowledge, it is far from impossible. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: +071 and +081 in London (+01 split) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:11:46 EST I reported a week or two ago on some experiments I conducted trying the new London city codes from the U.S. (which a British poster, Mr. Pettit, said were now mostly enabled, though official cutover is not till May). Not AT&T, Sprint, or MCI would accept either the 071 code or the 081 code; the calls were intercepted somewhere on the U.S. side. I also reported that AT&T's intercept was peculiar, to say the least. Last night I tried again, using Mr. Pettit's office number (which I never actually rang). It may now be reached by dialing, from the U.S., 011-44-1-941-xxxx. After May, it will be accessible by dialing 011-44-81-941-xxxx. Mr. Pettit reported that using the 071 city code resulted in a British Telecom intercept. I tried that city code on the same three carriers last night: 011-44-71-941-xxxx. I was calling from New Hampshire (603-880) on New England Telephone. Sprint (my default): no change. A numbered recording (60-93) informed me that I had dialed an invalid country or city code. AT&T: no change. I still get an intercept telling me that "due to the earthquake in the area you are calling" my call couldn't be completed. Something is not quite right in that office. (I get the same result calling from a Massachusetts pay phone.) MCI: Success! I got an intercept recording with a British accent telling me that instead of dialing the city code of 1 I should be using the city code 81 to reach the number. So MCI wins this particular race. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #216 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25031; 29 Mar 90 5:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18948; 29 Mar 90 3:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05736; 29 Mar 90 2:31 CST Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 1:22:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #217 BCC: Message-ID: <9003290122.ab12654@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:22:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 217 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [David Gast] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Jack Winslade] Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [Ken Abrams] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Jon Baker] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [John Boteler] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Ken Abrams] Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [David Schanen] FAXes on VAXes [John W. Manly] Wanted: SxS Unit [Ole J. Jacobsen] How Do I Set Up a 950 Number? [The Blade] How Do 800 Numbers Propogate? [Andrew M. Winkler] Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories [Anthony Lee] Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:56:11 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Another cause -- at least out here in GTE land is that the phone company is sending the call to the wrong number. It happened to me the last time only a few weeks ago. I call a number, the phone rings, and then there is an answer. I ask if this is 234-5678 (not real number), she says No, you stupid idiot, you dialed 234-1234. I aplogize (not imagining how I could have made such a gross error and try again. This time I am very certain that I dialed 234-5678. The same person answers, I try to explain that I did not dial her number, but she is angry anyway. Then I call GTE to get credit for these calls. The operator insists that he has to try the number. He dials 234-5678, get 234-1234 and the woman on the other end really lets him have it. (She does not recognize the difference in our voices). Moral: Before really screwing someone over for dialing a wrong number, be certain that it is not the phone company's fault. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 20:11:05 EST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@p0.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 Several years ago I worked for a hotel that was part of a regional chain. That chain (as well as others) made it a practice never to have a room numbered 411, since with the PBX's they had, the room number was the extension number and could be dialed from any phone on the property. Anyone dialing DA without dialing 9 first would therefore ring room 411, thus the only practical solution was to eliminate 411 from the room numbering scheme. In this hotel, extension 411 came in to a jack on the (cord at the time) switchboard and the operators reported that quite a few calls came in on it from both guests and employees (who should have been in the habit of dialing 9 first). Good Day! JSW --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611, and such? I've always seen room to room dialing done with something like '7' as the first digit, then the room number. The single digits '1' through '6' are things like room service, valet and front desk. '8' starts off long distance calls and '9' starts off local calls. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Date: 28 Mar 90 18:15:08 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <5675@accuvax.nwu.edu> Karl Denninger writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 208, Message 1 of 5 >In article <5647@accuvax.nwu.edu> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 207, Message 8 of 8 >>I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the >>Telco's positions somewhat on this. >I don't. I don't either. [Much deleted] >Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here. And stupid to boot (which is no real surprise). The people at the TELCO that are handling this issue have a chronic case of tunnel vision. They are penny wise and pound foolish. Like Brad so aptly pointed out, the BBS lines generate almost NO originating traffic and the callers pay the freight for all the terminating calls. The TELCO gets ALL this money if it is a local call in a measured service area and they get a piece of the revenue if it is a long distance call. If the local TELCO had any decent vision for the future, they would be trying to encourage BBS-type services instead of stiffeling it and they should be using the resources they are wasting fighting this issue to plan and implement "universal" measured service. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Date: 29 Mar 90 00:29:36 GMT Organization: gte In article <5518@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > I've been waiting to see any replies. Unfortunately, nothing has yet > shown up. Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's > equipment?" > Every now and then, someone will mention , in the course of their > posting on some subject or another, that their exchange's CO has a "#4 > ESS" or a "#3 ESS". How do they know that? As Mark asks, is there a > special test number you dial that tells you the equipment and software No. Not standardized across all CO equipment, anyway. > version? That seems unlikely... Do you just have to know what strange > sounds are generated by this or that piece of gear when you do "x" or > "y" with your telephone? There are certainly 'quirks' to all CO equipment of all generations that distinguish them from one another. Don't ask for a comprehensive list of quirks ... > If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to > belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken... Sorry, that's the best way. General rule - GTOC = GTD-5, RBOC = 5ESS. There's a fair number of other vendors' CO's out there, also. As for software version number, that's hard to say. There's no way I know of to detect it from your CPE. The best way to figure it out is look at all the neat new features your local telco is pushing, and equate that to the latest and greatest software release. > For that matter, how do you tell what equipment you have servicing you > if it is pre-ESS? Can you tell from the sequence of noises when you > dial? (But all BOCs are fully ESS now, right? Only odd private telcos > still have non-ESS gear -- am I right in saying that?) No. Although the minority, there are still a fair number of 'archaic' switches out there, particularly in remote/rural areas. Jon Baker ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 9:04:15 EST From: John Boteler Quick and dirty CO identification techniques: Accessing from the subscriber end: ESS5: Breaks dial tone on button-down. DMS-100: breaks dial tone on button-up; reorders dial tone on TT 'D'. Calling a subscriber on the switch in question: ESS5 & DMS-100 both complete the connection silently (when answered). ESS1, et al complete the connection with a distinctive click. XBAR, SxS, panel, XY, etc. left as an adventure to the reader. John Boteler {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Date: 28 Mar 90 23:22:45 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <5724@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9 >In response to the Moderator's comment: >I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical >switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same >extension? [SIC] (line?). It won't work for several reasons: 1) The station that IS off hook puts a very low resistance across the line (repeat coil in the phone). If ringing is applied to the line, (usually 88 VAC, superimposed on the talk battery) the repeat coil will take most of it. 2) Normal ringing circuits are designed so that they will not ring into a low resistance; they will "trip" and stop ringing. 3) It is possible that ringing applied manually to an off-hook line might make the other phones chirp if they have electronic ringers but this could only be done from a manual test position (or some similar arrangement) and it might damage the phone that is off-hook if applied long enough. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways Date: 29 Mar 90 06:22:59 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing In article <5746@accuvax.nwu.edu> amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew Boardman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 214, Message 5 of 14 >In article <5631@accuvax.nwu.edu> Brandon wrote: >>U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur >>Radio Assoc. Hamfest today. >Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people >have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint >colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here! They're free!" >One just writes down one's address and telephone number (no >identification is asked for) and they hand you a working "Fon Card." Well this is just silly! I can say with certainty that they were *not* handing out FON cards. I'm an Independant Marketing Representative (IMR) with a company called "Network 2000". The fellows you spotted on the streets of New York and other major (and not so major) cities are most likely representatives of this company. From what I gather we are the single greatest marketing tool for US Sprint (from my conversations with US Sprint customer service reps.) You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we carry, with an actual card. There would be *incredible* (to put it mildly) security problems with "handing out phone cards", that just wouldn't work. Let me know if you want more information about Network 2000, who knows you might be the next one out there selling Sprint. =) -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:19 EST From: John W Manly Subject: FAXes on VAXes Hi, all. The Academic Computer Center here at Amherst College has finally woken up, smelled the coffee, and decided we really can't operate without a FAX anymore. But if we're going to spring for one, we want to do it in style. Ideally, we would like a FAX machine that prints on normal paper (as opposed to thermal paper), and has an interface on it so that it can take input from the VAX (through a standard RS-232 port) as well as a regular scanner. We'd also like it for under $3000 if possible, although preliminary investigation suggests this is WAY too low. The question is, where might we look for one? Generally, FAX machines are not advertised in the publications that I usually read, like Digital Review, DEC Professional, and so on. So what advice do people have? Is anyone out there using FAXes connected to VAXes? Or connected to any other mini or mainframe for that matter? Even if not, does anyone have advice on what features/options we should be sure to look for or to avoid? Which companies' offerings should be be sure to investigate? Thanks for any and all replies. Please respond directly to me as I am not a regular reader of TELECOM. BITNET: JWMANLY@AMHERST - John W. Manly INTERNET: JWMANLY@AMHERST.EDU System Manager PHONE: (413)-542-2526 Amherst College ------------------------------ Date: Tue 27 Mar 90 07:55:01-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Wanted: SxS Unit Hi, For my own private "telephone museum" I am looking for a piece of a stepper switch. I think what I want is simply one "cylinder" (I know that's not the name...) where you can seen the "rotor" and a bunch of contacts. I don't have room for much more. Any ideas where I could pick one up? Phone companies are throwing these away as scrap these days, are they not? Ole ------------------------------ From: The Blade Subject: How Do I Set Up a 950 Number? Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 14:48:46 PST Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM I need information regarding if it is possible for a newly established telecommunications company to set up a 950 port in NJ. What are the guidelines, costs, hardware requirements, etc. Any info would be appreciated. Blade darkside.com ------------------------------ From: "Andrew M. Winkler" Subject: How Do 800 Numbers Propogate? Reply-To: "Andrew M. Winkler" Organization: Columbia University Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 17:22:33 GMT My wife runs a manufacturing company for pet products, and recently got an 800 number. The number is printed on the packaging. Not too long after getting the number, she got a 1 am call from someone in Mississippi, where none of her products have ever sold. More recently, she got a call from someone in Michigan who said someone had left the number (a name) on his answering machine. Are these kinds of weirdnessed normal? Any insight? Please email. If there is any interest, I'll post a summary. ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories Date: 28 Mar 90 12:32:11 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au I met someone named Peter Ng from GTE Lab at a conference in Singapore last year and I would like to contact him again. So I am wondering if someone could give me the address of the postmaster at GTE Labs in Waltham MA. Thanks in advance. Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 0:35:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia This is a clarification on the editorial changes mentioned a couple days ago: Signatures do serve a purpose, so we will continue allowing up to *two lines* only -- but no boxes, stars, slogans, cute sayings, half a dozen alternate addresses, etc. (Maybe some exceptions as needed, provided they provide needed address information.) Please get those quotes down to a maximum of 25-30% of the total message ... In the case of 'Re:' messages: Before replying to a given article, please read **all items** for the day which have arrived first. See if someone else is saying the same thing. If so, do you need to repeat what was said? Bandwidth is becoming critical here. Please help reduce total transmission, and do at least a modicum of editing on submissions. For next: A special issue of the Digest this weekend will be a copy of the federal indictment in Chicago of members of Legion of Doom. Follow up messages to it should be directed to the auxiliary mailing list established for the purpose: TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET -- not to the Digest. Also: If you did not get a copy of the FCC order regards COCOT blocking of 10xxx codes, it is in the Telecom Archives. I also have a copy of it here and will will mail it to *non-ftp'able locations* on request. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #217 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14916; 30 Mar 90 2:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21679; 30 Mar 90 0:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17044; 29 Mar 90 23:47 CST Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 22:51:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #218 BCC: Message-ID: <9003292251.ab01354@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Mar 90 22:50:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 218 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Fred E.J. Linton] US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT Advantage [Steve Elias] Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Andrew Boardman] Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels [Thomas Lapp] Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels [Edward Greenberg] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [John Bruner] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Tom Perrine] Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled [Doug Davis] Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring? [Paul Guthrie] Re: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories [Anthony Lee] Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Edward Vielmetti] Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Jon Baker] MCI Hotlines [solomon@mis.arizona.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) Date: 29 Mar 90 21:25:04 GMT In article <5720@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) writes: > If you have a credit card and use MCI, you can save a stamp. > MCI will bill your credit card directly if you wish. > [When the bill is wrong, it takes one stamp to pay the correct charges > on your credit card and one to write to your card issuer to explain why > you are refusing part of the billing from MCI, so it's the same total of two > stamps you would have used if you sent MCI their own check.] Actually, MCI does get my bill wrong on occasion, and does bill one of my credit cards directly (a CitiBank AAdvantage card, so with the 5 AA miles per MCI dollar and the additional AA mile per CitiBank billing dollar I'm getting a "whopping" 6% discount on my MCI calls :-). I've called MCI Customer Service in such situations as: getting charged for misconnections, or for non-connections (I dial, I hear three "rings" on a ring-generator, I hear what sounds like a handset going off-hook, but I hear no voice from the other end -- or perhaps the person on the other end hears no voice from me, hence remains silent, waiting)); and on each and every occasion they have promptly agreed to post a credit in the amount of those calls' charges (plus taxes) on my next bill. Means I'm sometimes a bit pre-paid, but things have always come out even again after a bill or two, and I've never needed to part with that second postage stamp. Now if AA would just credit my MCI and CitiBank card mileage credits a bit more _promptly_ ... :-) . -- Fred [look, pa, no /.sig!] ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways Date: 29 Mar 90 22:19:30 GMT In article <5746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew Boardman) writes: > Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people > have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint > colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here! They're free!" Same phenomenon at the weekly Sunday flea market in New Haven (CT). This is a market at which produce vendors, clothing vendors, and junk dealers (folks whose work it is to empty out left-over furniture, etc., from empty houses trying to get sold in settlement of an estate, and whose extra income comes from selling the more saleable of the items they thus "salvage") hawk their wares to an extremely penurious assortment of customers. (How penurious? Let a typical exchange illustrate: "How much you want for that TV?" "Five bucks." "Aw, you know I don't have that kinda money; let's see (rummaging through pockets) ... would you take a quarter for it?" And, mirabile dictu, sometimes that quarter is really all it takes!) Anyway, on at least two Sundays in the past three months, there at that market were Sprint folks hawking Sprint's shiny new silver FoN cards. I chatted with one of them a bit -- not very long, as, already having a FoN card, and not wishing to sign up Sprint as my dial-one carrier, I wasn't a very good prospect -- long enough, at least, to learn that these Sprint folks work on a per-signup commission, and that the longer-term aim is to make Sprint dial-one customers out of these FoN card accepters. Wonder how long it takes Sprint to revoke a card because of unpaid bills? Fred ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 10:12:36 -0500 From: Steve Elias Regarding the Network 2000 marketing practices... Some folks within US Sprint do not appreciate the bad name that Sprint gets by being associated with Network 2000. However, I'm sure their beancounters appreciate the bottom line that Network 2000 helps to generate. Regarding the new ATT ads: Speed. Another ATT advantage. I notice that in the fine print, the ad says "statistics based on switched service". Does this mean this "speed" advantage is really only noticeable on old style crossbar switch COs??? What is the difference in timing on 5ESS switches? I notice about a 1 second difference in call setup time from my CO in Massachusetts. This doesn't make a difference to me, personally -- I'd prefer the better sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took *significantly* longer to set up the call. In any case, I think that ATT's ads are easily as sleazy as any of the other long distance companies. It's getting so that the LD carrier ads remind me of those obnoxious "slam the other candidate" political ads. ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com, eli@pws.bull.com ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax 508 671 7447 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 15:53:51 EST From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating In article <5779@accuvax.nwu.edu> mtv@milton.u.washington.edu wrote: > You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we >carry, with an actual card. There would be *incredible* (to put it >mildly) security problems with "handing out phone cards", that just >wouldn't work. Well now, that's what *I* thought. Nevertheless, I've got a shiny new FONCARD in my wallet that worked 45 seconds after I got it! /a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 12:35:46 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu > [Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to > room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on > every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611, My experience (Pan Pacific hotel, Anaheim, CA): floors 1-9, dial '7' then room number. floors 10-14, dial room number. In a smaller hotel with only three digit room numbers, room to room was by dialing only those three digits (which probably only started with 1 or 2 so could be identified as three digit by the first digit.). internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 11:34 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels The moderator (Hi Patrick) states that he's never seen a hotel which allowed room-to-room dialing where the extension was the room number. I've been in hotels this scheme, although I've been in lots of hotels that used a prefix, too. I remember one where the rooms were all in the form 101 to 1xx and 201 to 2xx, and various hotel extensions were all in another hundreds group. One common scheme is "For Rooms on 2 - 9, dial 7 + Room Number." For rooms on 10 and above, dial the room number. 'Course I remember the first PBX I ever saw, when I was five (in 1960). It was at the Brunswick Hotel in Lakewood New Jersey. The phones were all old style non-dial phones. Round base, skinny neck, large cradle and oversized heavy handset. Behind the desk was the most fascinating device: A cord board. In the lobby, was a row of wooden phone booths. Some had cathedral style coin phones, and others had house phones -- separate earpiece, with mouthpiece mounted on the wall! No dial, of course. Boy, how far we've come. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:59:20 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone I have read the explanations of why it is impossible to ring a busy telephone with some interest, because I remember it happening in my parents' house a long time ago. We had a party line, and the other party had left their telephone off-hook. My parents called Indiana Bell from a neighbor's telephone. There was a very strange ring in the house (a set of very short rings), and when I lifted the receiver of one telephone, the other one continued to ring. All of the telephones in those days had real bells. Perhaps that made a difference. I'm certainly willing to believe that modern telephones with electronic ringers wouldn't do this. John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Date: 29 Mar 90 20:23:59 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar to the problem of rining an off-hook phone. I saw a phone once (Bell System 2500) that had a push-to-talk swith in the handset, and was told that this was because the "infinity bugs" were still around. Don't ask where, or when :-) Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth that a *lot* of people believe in? Tom Perrine (tep) Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA (619) 455-1330 Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM GENIE: T.PERRINE UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled Date: 29 Mar 90 16:14:37 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. In article <5723@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) writes: >I hadn't meant that the cellular customer should use Call Blocking to >refuse calls from the power dialer's number. The blocking to which I >had referred was Caller ID blocking, where a *caller* refuses to have >his or her number provided to a callee who has Caller ID. If a >cellular customer who has Caller ID sees that a caller has blocked the >delivery of the calling number, the callee, not knowing who is >calling, can let the phone ring unanswered and not get soaked for >airtime. Ur, I don't know about where you are getting your cellular subscription from, but around here both Southwestern Bell Mobil systems (wireline) and GTE MetroCell (non-wireline) charge for air time while your phone is ringing. That is, if your phone is powered up and a call comes in you will be charged for the same air time as if you had answered it. No, you don't get charged if your phone is turned off. This really burns me up, having a !@#$ telemarketer call and have to *PAY* to listen to them. Personally someone who powerdials a cellular exchange should have their cellular phone number listed in a public place so we can initate retaliatory strikes with a speed dialer ;-) Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun|lawnet|texbell}!letni!doug or doug@letni.lonestar.org [Moderator's Note: Both Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One here in Chicago say very plainly in their literature "We do not bill for busy or unanswered calls." They do keep track of the time, however, and if you answer (on an incoming call) or get an answer on a call you made, then the charges are backdated to when you actually pressed 'send' (on outgoing calls) or when the CO started ringing you (on incoming calls). PT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring? Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 20:32:25 GMT In article <5522@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >My local telco has started to offer a service where you can have two >or three phone numbers assigned to a single line and distinguish them >by the way they ring. >It occurs to me that a fine way to put a fax and a modem on the same >line would be to use a box that listened to the ring and connected to >one of two or three ports depending on the ring pattern. Yes, such a device is available from Know Ideas Inc at (708)3580505. They have versions to switch between two three and four distinctive rings. These work quite well, and exactly as described. I don't quite recall prices, but they are less than the less functional "Fax switches". Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Re: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories Date: 29 Mar 90 23:38:08 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: >I met someone named Peter Ng from GTE Lab at a conference in I just want to thank everyone on the net for helping out. I didn't think that the email address to GTE would be that easy to come by. When I met Peter last year, he didn't give me his email address and so I assumed that it is very difficult to get access to GTE. Hopefully I'll be able to get to him (at least I don't have to SNAIL him B-). Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia ------------------------------ From: Edward Vielmetti Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme Date: 29 Mar 90 17:57:23 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. FROGGY, the U of Michigan Audio Response Unit, was disconnected forever once they decomissioned the Data Concentrator (a PDP of some flavor) through which it was attached to MTS. I believe that Dave Mills of Fuzzball and NTP fame has some credit for the Data Concentrator. Ed ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions Date: 29 Mar 90 14:38:47 GMT Organization: gte In article <5529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gtisqr!toddi@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes: > >The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to > >different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > So what the heck are these? I've always wondered. Have anything to > do with the bell being across tip and ring vs. earth-ground and ring, > or maybe detecting off-hook? Methods of detecting on/off hook. In ground start, seizure is detected by applying ground to (I think) the tip lead. In loop start, it's detected by closing the tip/ring loop. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 1990 16:12:34 MST From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: MCI HotLines MCI is now offering a new service called HotLines. MCI customers can call 1.700.770.7000 any time for $0.65/min. (A touchtone phone is required). Calls can be placed from home or via the MCI Card. It is not clear from their literature if there is a surcharge for card access. The following information is available: 1. Jeane Dixon Horoscopes 2. Sports Illustrated Sports HotLine 3. Soap Opera Updates by Lynda Hirsch 4. Fortune Magazine's Business and Financial News 5. WeatherTrak Forecasts MCI is offering two five-minute free HotLines calls to get customers to try the new service. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #218 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16938; 30 Mar 90 3:33 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16264; 30 Mar 90 1:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21679; 30 Mar 90 0:52 CST Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 0:16:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #219 BCC: Message-ID: <9003300016.ab19938@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Mar 90 00:15:24 CST Volume 10 : Issue 219 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Yoram Eisenstadter] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Paul Guthrie] Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Jon Solomon] Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Jim Rees] Re: The Card [Fred E.J. Linton] Extended 911 Coverage [Joel B. Levin] Plain Paper Fax / PC-Fax [Steve Elias] Info on NUA-s Wanted [Milan Kovacevic] Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [John L. Shelton] Where Can I Get Old Databit Muxes [Kent Hauser] Historical Query: Carterfone [Arthur Axelrod] Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 14:17:59 EST From: Yoram Eisenstadter Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Reply-To: yoram@cs.columbia.edu In a recent message, Ed Ravin wrote about New York City exchanges that have numbers (-9901 suffixes) that identify the CO equipment. Being a NY City resident, I couldn't resist calling the number for my local exchange (718-347-9901). Here's roughly what the recording said: ``We are pleased to announce that you have reached the Floral Park 1A-ESS, serving the 343 and 347 exchanges in the 718 area, and the 352 and 354 exchanges in the 516 area.'' I also called the number in the original posting, 212-601-9901, and got an interesting variant: ``Congratulations! You have reached the Kingsbridge DMS...'' Cheers .. Y ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 19:42:43 GMT The CO switch type is a field in Bellcore's LERG database. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 18:29:59 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: How To Identify Your CO Equipment It is virtually impossible to determine the difference between a 5-ESS and any other digital switch (virtually, not totally). 5-ESS is the most perfect of the digital switches. Unfortunatly it can be used for just about any CO purpose including remote CO's and CO's that have one prefix (and half of it unused), all the way up to ten prefixes or more. You can tell you are on a 1-A or 1ess because it clicks. Seriously, digital switches don't click, they are silent. 5-ESS, Northern Telecom DMS and other digital switches (GTE GTD5 comes to mind) are all silent and work basically the same. If you have a phone on the line you can usually tell what the machine is, particularly on where you live and which kind of machine your phone company uses. DMS switches sometimes have ringing before intercept on not-in-service numbers. If you get that, you know for certain you are on a DMS-100. DMS-200s don't do that. Call waiting is another sign. Click Beep Click Click means either 1 or 1-A ESS. Just a beep means digital. On a digital switch you can not tell when your second party terminates, there is no clunk clunk like on 1-A's and 1's. The difference beteween a 1 and a 1-A is the 1 is older, and will probably be phased out soon; also you cannot get any of the new features on a 1 because they ran out of space in the CPU and memory for more programming. If they add something they have to take something away. *70 does not work on a 1. 1-A's have all the nifty features and *70 works. 5-ESS' have a tendency (although this is not due to the hardware) to ring the phone if you make a three-way call to a second party, don't connect to them first, and hang up. It usually means you got a busy signal on the first call, called someone else, and then hung up with the first party holding. The phone will ring then. Also, call waiting will ring the phone, but it does on all machines. ATT doesn't let the LOC's program the 5-ESS' like they do with the 1's and the 1-A's. That means no local hacks. Here in Mass, the 1's and 1-A's all cut in with a recording saying dial 1-508-number when you dial an empty prefix in 617. The 5-ESS' gobble the whole number before saying the recording. For those in Boston: Alot of Boston CO's are turning 5-ESS. 439 is a 5-ESS, 338 is a 1-A. All Back Bay CO's are 1-A's. Charlestown just got a DMS-100 all the Bowdoin COs are 1-A's. The Franklin St. CO is a 5-ESS. Somerville, Arlington, Belmont are all 5-ESS'. Watertown is a 1; that's right, a 1. Switches no more than six prefixes. I hope they replace it soon. Brookline just got a 1-A. 432 is on it. All other prefixes are on a 1-A. Brighton is a 1-A. Newton is a DMS-200, a BIG CO. Newton has a centrex on the Watertown switch and a prefix for local numbers on it too. Newton was the first digital switch in the area. It was also the first crossbar switch and when that got replaced by the DMS it was so old and crickety. Now they have something that is not much worse. Cambridge has three CO's, one is the old MIT CO, which is Kendall Square now (called Bent Street), and is a 1-A. MIT has its own CO which is a 5-ESS. The third CO is the Ware Street CO and it covers most of Cambridge. Here you have a choice between a 1-A and a 5-ESS. Of course I am getting one of each. Harvard just switched from the 1-A to the 5-ESS. 495 moved in its entirety, no line changes, and 498 numbers went to 493 which is on the 5-ESS. Dialing 498 + ext. gives you a recording saying dial 493 + ext. These are the student numbers, so it didn't matter. Anyway, hope that helps. FYI, 279-438 is a DMS-100, and you can dial (617) 279-1666 to see the ringing before the intercept. Some telcos put a recording in after a ringing signal. I am not talking about that; I am talking about ring, ring ... beep beep beep, the number you have reached 2 7 9 1 6 6 6 is not in service in area code 6 1 7. In other machines, the intercept beeps occur without ringing. jsol ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 19:17:00 GMT In article <5764@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rlf@mtgzy.att.com (Ronald L Fletcher) writes: > There is USUALLY an easy work-around. If you type control-d as the > FIRST character at the LOGIN: prompt, the system will respawn a new > getty with the default I/O parameters. This should return a login: > prompt and you then login normally. On some systems this may drop the > line and you'll be right back to where you started from. If that's the case, the other thing you can do is log in and do "stty -lcase" (or is it "stty lcase"? Try them both, or check the man page). If you have any upper-case letters, or any of {}~| (maybe some others) in your user name or password, you'll have to precede the letters with \ and type the special characters as \[ \] \` \\ respectively. I have actually logged in to Unix and tried to do work on an upper-case only terminal, on a v6 system back (running on an Interdata 8/32!) in 1979. What a pain. ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: The Card Date: 29 Mar 90 21:54:26 GMT In article <5726@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dhk@teletech.uucp (Don H Kemp) writes: > Well people, Here's the "official" word from AT&T on their credit card... Seeing the word first in Tuesday's [New York Times] (both a full-page ad and a longish article in the business section), I tried to call the 1-800-662-7759 Don Kemp mentions -- busy all day! Tried again around 4:00 am EST Wednesday and got through without even entering a queue -- it pays to be a night-owl! Questions asked prospective subscribers are all quite easy to answer -- name, address, home phone #, Soc. Sec. #, names of checking/savings banks, annual income, mother's maiden name, employer -- nothing you need look up data for. Answers provided this prospective subscriber: No, the card number bears no resemblance to your phone number, and the PIN is not imprinted on the card (though your phone number is, in a subsidiary way); yes, the rental car collision/damage coverage, supplemental to any collision/damage coverage your home auto policy may provide, is valid even if your home auto policy provides _no_ collision/damage coverage, and even if you have no home auto policy; yes, no annual fee ever for 1990 subscribers who use the card in _some_ way (calling card _or_ charge card mode) at least once a year. My interlocutor agreed that AT&T had evidently underestimated the response this card offering would generate -- he was aware of long queuing times, but was flabbergasted that busy signals actually kept me from ever getting on the queue at all -- he spoke of 12,000 calls per hour getting handled, nationwide, on Tuesday! I might estimate four calls per hour per operator -- at that rate, AT&T must have had some 3,000 operators nationwide handling all those calls, and well over 100,000 applicants getting through. Wow! Fred ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Extended 911 Coverage Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:15:38 EST I don't expect to see a state-wide (area-code-wide, LATA-wide, they're all the same for me) 911 coverage for quite some time unless some changes are made. I live in the town of Merrimack, New Hampshire (as someone has pointed out, in New England you are always in some town or city, there is no "out in the county" as there is out west). But we in the southern part of the town are in the Nashua, NH coverage area, and my phone number is a Nashua number. The rest of Merrimack is covered by its own two prefixes. Nashua (except for 888 in south Nashua) has the latest most modern switching equipment, as far as I can tell; Merrimack's is older and may be ESS or may be crossbar. Nashua has for a long time had 911, but Merrimack residents have always been told to dial the appropriate police or fire number directly. If I had called 911 from my own telephone, it would have gone to the Nashua emergency dispatcher, and he or she would not be able to dispatch the Merrimack emergency people. A couple months ago Merrimack got 911 service. A policeman visited my daughter's kindergarten and handed out new stickers to put on the phones. They are now handing out two sets of stickers. If you live in Merrimack and have a Merrimack number, you dial 911 for all emergencies. However, if you have a Nashua prefix, you get a different sticker with a regular 7 digit Merrimack number and instructions _not_ to dial 911. Until they get together and resolve this kind of problem there won't be any universal 911 for all of 603 (or even the southern NH area). This is complicated by the fact that there are a lot of towns in NH, including two covered by the Nashua phone book, that have independent phone companies. /JBL ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Plain Paper Fax / PC-Fax Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 10:04:44 -0500 From: Steve Elias Hello John and Telecom readers, I'm not very well versed on the pricing and availability of plain paper fax machines, but for your requirements, you might want to consider building up a PC AT with a PC-Fax board. Such a setup would allow you to print your faxes on an laserprinter and thus produce plain paper output. I'm not sure if any current PC-Fax products have an established RS232 interface which can accept text from a VAX, though such a setup would not be too difficult for a system manager type to customize. I believe such a setup would cost well under $3000. Most PC magazines review PC-Fax board occasionally, and there are lots of ads for the beasties. ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com, eli@pws.bull.com ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax 508 671 7447 ------------------------------ From: Milan Kovacevic Subject: Info on NUA-s Wanted Date: 29 Mar 90 16:39:31 GMT Reply-To: Milan Kovacevic Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department I am looking for a list of NUA numbers for the USA. If you have any information that might help me, please send me E_mail. Milan Kovacevic (milan@cs.ucla.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 09:19:55 PST From: "John L. Shelton" Subject: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX I would like to try some public voice mail exchanges before going whole-hog to purchasing an in-house voice mail system. To do this, I must have calls diverted from my extension when busy (or no answer) to an outside number. We have Direct-Inward-Dialing (DID) on this Mitel. When I forward my line to an outside number, inside callers get my voice mail, but outside callers get a busy signal. My PBX service provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of "ground start," but this sounds bogus to me. Anyone have experience with this scenario? =John Shelton= ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: Where Can I Get Old Databit Muxes Date: 29 Mar 90 19:20:32 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC Does anyone know where anyone can get some old Databit multiplexers? Actually, any cheap synchronous telex muxes would do, but I've already got a bunch of Databit 922's & if I could get some used ones, that would be the easiest. Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.uu.net (202) 408-0841 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 90 14:56:55 PST (Thursday) Subject: Historical Query: Carterfone From: Arthur_Axelrod.WBST128@xerox.com Perhaps someone can refresh my aging memory (it's the second thing to go:-). There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that non-telco devices could be connected to the net. That led to DAAs (standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC registration. The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I think). Could someone enlighten me as to the dates and some of the background of this case? Were there any other court cases that were part of ther process? Art Axelrod Xerox Webster Research Center ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines Date: Thu 29 Mar 1990 23:00 CST In the message prior to this, Art Axelrod mentions the landmark Carterfone case. It brought about some major changes. Carterfone was in the early sixties. My very first answering machine was manufactured about that time, and it could not by law be hardwired into the phone line. Instead, the phone sat on a box with a speaker in the top of it. Two metal fingers were fitted under the receiver, in the middle section on top of the phone between the switchook buttons. Any loud noise in the vicinity (such as the vacuum cleaner in general, but the bell on the phone in particular) caused a relay in the box to close its contacts. This in turn powered a spring-loaded thing which forced the fingers to jump up about half an inch, lifting the receiver slightly off the hook, 'answering' the phone. The mobious (or endless-loop) tape in the box played a message through the speaker which the mouthpiece on the phone 'heard' accoustically. A little suction cup accoustic coupler was attached to the receiver also, near the earpiece. This 'heard' what the caller said, and sent it to a portable cassette player sitting nearby, whose remote on/off was controlled by something in the box which sat under the phone. I got a fifteen second outgoing message and a thirty second incoming message. The outgoing message was recorded on the incoming message tape each time it played out, so when you listened to your messages (when you got home, of course, since there was no such thing as remote message playback), you heard your own outgoing message before each incoming message. And of course these were strange things generally unknown to the public and an actual message left by anyone was rare. Plenty of dial tones and "if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again" messages though! I had two such machines; one for the switchboard phone (I lived in an apartment hotel) and one for my private line. They cost me about $500 each as I recall; back in 1961. When the maid would come in to vacuum my carpet, the phones would go off hook and start playing their message when she was near them! PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #219 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02045; 31 Mar 90 20:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10993; 31 Mar 90 19:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25842; 30 Mar 90 23:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18973; 30 Mar 90 22:01 CST Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 22:01:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #220 BCC: Message-ID: <9003302201.ab31634@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Mar 90 22:00:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 220 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Spring Ahead; Fall Behind [TELECOM Moderator] Sprint Foncards in Braille [Douglas W. Martin] Re: Sprint Foncards in Braille [Greg Fowler] Vnet, VPN, SDN and Leased Lines [Brian Jay Gould] Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal (Jim Rees) Overhearing Conversations [Yong Su Kim] PBX Recommendations Wanted [Todd Inch] 800 Service Providers [John Stanley] 10xxx Access Codes Addendum [John Stanley] Technical Specs For a Caller-ID Box [Mike Shulman] ATT Smart About PINs [Steve Elias] A Call to 212-228-9901 [Stephen Tihor] 900 Number Pricing List [Dave Esan] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [John Stanley] Correction to Boston Area CO Descriptions [Jon Solomon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:06:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Spring Ahead; Fall Behind Don't forget: The United States switches to Daylight Savings Time this Sunday, April 1, at 2:00 AM (your local time). Whatever time you finish your hacking Saturday night/Sunday morning be sure to set your clock ahead one hour before going to sleep or you'll be late for whatever you planned for Sunday! PT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:31:50 PST From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: Sprint Foncards in Braille I too was successful at the WD40 quiz and won a Sprint card. During the conversation with the Sprint rep, I mentioned that I was totally blind, and he asked me if I wanted my Foncard in Braille. I got the card and the instructions in Braille; the card has the number: #1800 #8778000 followed by my 14-digit number in Braille. The dialing instructions occupy two Braille pages. I believe they also said that I can call directory assistance in any area code for free because of my blindness. i.e. calls to 1-NPA-555-1212 will be credited. I'm not changing to Sprint as my primary carrier, but I was impressed with their service. To my knowledge, no other company offers these services. Doug Martin, martin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: Although AT&T does not offer their cards in Braille, they do write off charges to 555-1212 for persons who are visually or print handicapped. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Foncards in Braille Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 12:12:39 PST From: fowler@cisco.com >[Moderator's Note: I suggest you order it again; everyone else got >their card and some of us have recieved our first bills already. PT] I called into the contest when it was first announced in the Digest. About a week ago, I decided to call to see where my card was. I called the contest number back and was told to call Sprint Customer Service. The person I spoke to was quite nice and polite. After about 10 minutes of hold time, she said she had checked all the offices and they had no record of my order. There's one additional twist to this story. Since the cards have some random number on them, I decided to take advantage of Sprint's advertising that they will provide a card labelled in Braille. I'm not interested in remembering random numbers and typically don't have the reading equipment I use available when I want to use the card. The Sprint representative told me that perhaps my order had been lost because all requests for Braille cards are *written by hand* and passed up the chain in this manner. It was amazing to hear this and would certainly guarantee more potential problems for visually impaired customers (but maybe the Braille cards were for PR and service wasn't their goal). Greg ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: Vnet, VPN, SDN and Leased lines Date: 30 Mar 90 03:20:21 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. I am attempting to consolidate some long distance bills and in the process get some volume discounts. The problem is that Sprint has told me that none of the carriers can offer my leased line bills as part of the total. That is, my 70k/month of leased traffic won't add to my total volume and thus add to my discount. AT&T can't give me a straight answer, and MCI has said (and backed in writing) that they "probably" can. Anyone out there know for sure? Thanks. * Brian Jay Gould - Director, Systems Support * * General Logistics International, Inc. * * internet: gould@pilot.njin.net * ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 16:47:15 GMT I've just acquired an antique AT&T Sceptre teletext terminal without manual. It was manufactured by Western Electric and the firmware is dated 1983. It has an internal modem and claims to speak NAPLPS. The modem doesn't respond to standard 300, 1200, or 1200 Vadic answer tones. Does anyone know anything about this terminal? Anyone know where I can get a NAPLPS spec? ------------------------------ From: Yong Su Kim Subject: Overhearing Conversations Reply-To: Yong Su Kim Organization: Columbia University Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 18:40:57 GMT A week ago, my friend called his friend at Cornell. During this conversation, my friend was able to hear another conversation but his friend at Cornell was unable to hear the other conversation. I presume that this must have meant my friend was connected to two other lines. However, my friend could only hear one side of the other conversation and could not respond. The phone company we use here is AT&T. I was wondering if such crossed lines are common. Maybe someone out there knows more about such problems. |Internet: yk4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |||||||||||Yong Su Kim|||||||||||| |Bitnet : yk4@cunixc |||||The Korean from Hong Kong|||| |UUCP : uunet!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!yk4 |||||||...Apple IIGS user...|||||| [Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been crosstalk. Wires get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes poor, etc. On occassion when I have had to wait a few seconds for dial tone, the amount of crosstalk was incredible; especially the day the manhole in front of our building got flooded after a heavy rain. Once dial tone arrived, it (and my subsequent connection) were clean and free of miscellaneous conversations. It can be fun to listen to! PT] ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: PBX Recommendations Wanted Reply-To: Todd Inch Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc. Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 00:43:38 GMT My firm is interested in finding a replacement PBX for our existing Omega-Phone (Iwatsu) system (don't laugh!). I'd like suggestions from you telecommers about a model or vendor, and if possible, some guess at a price. We would consider a used system if sufficient documentation is supplied with it. Features we need: - 50 extensions (now) plus expandability. - 10 telco i/o lines plus 4 incoming and 2 outgoing WATS lines (now), plus expandability. - Use standard 2500 style (POTS - compatible) phones. Possibly with optional message-wait light. Want compatibility with speakerphones, autodialers, modems, faxes, etc. Single pair wiring with maybe a second pair for a message light. - Semi-direct inward dialing of extensions, probably after an automated answer and prompt for extension number. (Want to be able to inward dial modems and a fax on a regular extension by dialing main number-pause-extension.) Anyone have horror stories of fax's/modems set up like this? - Direct dialing of outside numbers, via PBX auto-selection of line (WATS, local, foreign exchange) depending on A/C and prefix. - Programmable outward number blocking (e.g. 900, 976, etc.) - Extension forwarding, last number redial, conference calling within company. - Unanswered incoming calls can select voice mail, another extension, or be forwarded to our operator. - Voice mail. - Paging, music on hold. - Audit trail of outgoing calls by extension would be nice. Existing problems we have: - Proprietary phone sets, using 3 pair wiring, incompatible with everything, too expensive, too many buttons (42!). - No automatic selection of outward lines. All lines are now either WATS or foreign exchange, we want to add one or two local lines to avoid some LD charges. Users now manually select an outgoing line. - No sharing of lines. Now have dedicated modem and fax lines which can't take advantage of choosing local, foreign exchange, WATS. - No direct/semi-direct inward dialing. All incoming calls handled by our receptionist. - Too many calls from telemarketers (but a PBX probably can't help that. ;^) We would probably want to install/maintain the system ourselves. We have little PBX experience, but have electronic engineers and some telephone knowledge. We maintain our existing system. Please mail me responses, I'll summarize and re-post. I'll also take phone calls at 1-800-426-8048 from USA or 206 743-6659 from Washington state. I'm here 8-5 Pacific time. Thanks! Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 17:10:41 EST From: John Stanley Subject: 800 Service Providers Can anyone tell me who has been assigned the 800 prefix 275, as in 1-800-ASK-xxxx? I am having a real hard time getting ahold of MCI 800 service to question a bill and am starting to look for a new 800 service provider. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 17:12:38 EST From: John Stanley Subject: 10xxx Access Codes Addendum I have an addition to the recent list of 10xxx codes. 10096 belongs to FLEX Communications in Johnstown, NY. ------------------------------ From: mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman ) Subject: Technical Specs For a Caller-ID Box Date: 30 Mar 90 00:56:03 GMT Reply-To: mikes@pedsga.UUCP (Mike Shulman ,SPCSYS,7586) Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp., Tinton Falls, N.J. Hello everyone! I am sure this has been discussed by now, but I just joined this news group. Where can I get hold of some technical specs that would allow me to build a box that would do all the Caller-ID stuff? It doesn't sound like it would be very difficult for someone who likes to put circuits together. Have any of the magazines like Popular Electronics come out with schematics for such a thing yet? If anyone has any info on this, please post or E-mail. Thanks in advance! Mike Shulman Internet: mikes@tinton.ccur.com UUCP: princeton!rutgers!petsd!pedsga!mikes ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: ATT Smart About PINs Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 08:17:48 -0500 From: Steve Elias I just got a new corporate ATT card. It can be used with our company's 800 number or for any other phone call. It looks like a damned nice service. One thing that I thought was really smart was that ATT does not print the last 4 digits (PIN) on the card. This was at the request of the customer (Bull). Good move! ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com, eli@pws.bull.com ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax 508 671 7447 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 1990 12:59:45 EST From: Stephen Tihor Subject: A Call to 212-228-9901 "You have reach 13th street dee ess one serving codes....." What might a DS/1 (SP?) in the context of a switch self announcment mean? ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: 900 Number Pricing List Date: 30 Mar 90 19:15:35 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY Is there a source that provides the cost for an individual 900 call? I have call 1-900-555-1212 and got some fixed costs for individual NXX's, but then got a list of premium services with no announced cost. Somewhere, someone in a galaxy far far away must have a list. Thanks for any pointers. --> David Esan {rutgers, ames, harvard}!rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 09:29:27 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Reply-To: stanley@stanley.UUCP (John Stanley) Organization: New Methods Research, Inc. In article <5813@accuvax.nwu.edu> bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes: >I have read the explanations of why it is impossible to ring a busy >telephone with some interest, because I remember it happening in my >parents' house a long time ago. We had a party line, and the other The party line reference is the key. There are (were) two ways of setting up a party line for ringing. One system involved "tuned- ringers", where each party's bell was tuned for a different ringing frequency. This was what we had at my parent's house (GTE). Our bells were tuned for 20Hz, next door was 30Hz, etc. We switched to private service after the neighbors kids got old enough to use the phone and we couldn't, but the line and CO to this day have the different ringing frequency generators. The last digit of the number selected which frequency. To call another party on your line, you could dial 71xy, where x was the last digit of your number, and y was theirs. Hang up and answer when your phone stops ringing. This gave me many happy hours of fun, ringing our phones. Of course, all the non-telco phones had non-tuned ringers, so they happily rang on any frequency. It was a handy way to alert other residents to trouble -- a phone ringing twice as much as usual with two tones is quite distinctive. (Hey! Did GTE invent Distinctive Ringing?) The second method is called bridged ringing. The ringers are connected from one side of the pair to ground, not from tip to ring. It was possible to get 4 party service this way, but I do not remember the details. But, this meant that the CO could ring your phone by putting ring current on one side of the pair, your neighbor with the other. You didn't ask, but I will. "How does the CO know on a party line which party is making a call?" Well, you all had untimed service and the operator asked you on long distance calls. Newer systems put a load from tip or ring to ground to indicate which party you are. This was well beyond the old step-by-step we had, so "your number please" on all LD calls. This is why you are not allowed to put CPE on a party line. Most new phones would ring on every call. That, and if you screw up the line you could hurt someone besides yourself. nn m m RRR i John Stanley |Signature truncated by #include stanley@nmri.com | popular demand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:07:17 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: Correction to Boston Area CO Descriptions Brookline's 432 exchange is a 5-ESS, not a 1-A. The 1-A switches everything else. There may be two 1-A's. jsol ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #220 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02170; 31 Mar 90 20:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10993; 31 Mar 90 19:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02737; 31 Mar 90 1:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10962; 31 Mar 90 0:07 CST Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 23:07:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #221 BCC: Message-ID: <9003302307.ab28136@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Mar 90 23:06:45 CST Volume 10 : Issue 221 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [John Higdon] Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [Scott Fybush] Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Kevin L. Blatter] Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Joel M. Snyder] Re: Cordless Phone Range [Tad Cook] Re: US Sprint [Hagbard Celine] Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT Advantage [J. Higdon] Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT Advantage [W. Kramer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines Date: 30 Mar 90 10:21:38 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon On Mar 30 at 0:16, TELECOM Moderator writes: > The mobious (or endless-loop) tape in the box played a message through > the speaker which the mouthpiece on the phone 'heard' accoustically. > A little suction cup accoustic coupler was attached to the receiver > also, near the earpiece. This 'heard' what the caller said, and sent > it to a portable cassette player sitting nearby, whose remote on/off In the mid-60's, I had something called an Ansaphone. It was highly versatile for the period and allowed the user to use either full accoustical coupling as you describe, or use an inductive ring that slipped over the earpiece end of the handset. This ring could couple two-way communication through the telephone and the quality, needless to say, was highly superior to the accoustical method. If you removed the carbon microphone from the handset before strapping the telephone into this contraption, you would eliminate the "clang" when the thing answered the phone. > The outgoing message was recorded on the incoming message tape each > time it played out, so when you listened to your messages (when you > got home, of course, since there was no such thing as remote message > playback), you heard your own outgoing message before each incoming > message. The Ansaphone used an endless loop for the outgoing message, and a much longer endless loop for the incoming message. So, instead of rewinding, it simply fast-forwarded to the beginning of the tape. The incoming tape did not run except to record an actual incoming message, so listening to messages was not so tedious. But the real whizzo was the ability to listen to messages remotely. Using a handheld tone generator similar to the early Phonemates, one could get the incoming tape to FF, then play the messages. When the entire tape had played, the machine would hang up. The contraption cost nearly $1,000. Not as neat as my home voice mail, but we are talking the Sixties! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:45:37 est From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines Are you sure that the "1961"-vintage answering machine described in your posting used a portable _cassette_ recorder? It's my recollection that Philips didn't invent the cassette tape until about 1963 or so. Scott Fybush [Moderator's Note: You expect me to remember almost thirty years ago? :) As I think about it, my first answering machine was around 1964; I had one of them, and got the second one (for the manual line from the cord switchboard downstairs) about six months after the first one. The portable cassette players were expensive also; about a hundred dollars each for a couple of real cheezie things. I date things back then around JFK: He had been gone almost a year when I got the first unit. PT] ------------------------------ From: klb@pegasus.att.com Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:33 EST Subject: Re: Historical Query: Carterfone < Perhaps someone can refresh my aging memory (it's the second thing to < go:-). There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that < non-telco devices could be connected to the net. That led to DAAs < (standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC < registration. The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I < think). < Could someone enlighten me as to the dates and some of the background < of this case? Were there any other court cases that were part of there < process? To quote directly from _Engineering and Operations in the Bell System_, 2nd Edition, 1984, Section 17.2.3, P. 692-693: In 1947, the FCC permitted use of customer-provided recording devices but ordered that direct electrical connection of such devices to the telephone network must be through protecting arrangements provided and maintained by the telephone company. A variety of interconnection devices, many of which were foreign made, became available during the late 1950s. They were designed to attach to existing telephone sets or to be used as terminal equipment themselves. The major common carriers maintained that it would be impossible to ensure efficient telephone service if devices supplied by firms with no legal responsibility for the quality of service were attached to the network by customers; interconnection of such devices could increase the network's operating costs and disrupt its efficiency. This could be particularly damaging in times of emergency. The FCC supported this position and refused to allow the use of interconnection devices, but it was overruled by the court of appeals in the case of the Hush-A-Phone device, a small cup-like nonelectrical handset attachment that enhanced privacy when talking. Then, in 1968, the FCC ruled in favor of Carter Electronics, a Texas firm that made a mobile radio device that could be acoustically coupled to the common carrier voice telephone network. This device, called the Carterfone, was primarily being sold to oil exploration and drilling companies for use by field engineers in remote areas. This ruling by the FCC was a landmark: It set in motion the forces of deregulation and led to intense competition because, unlike the Hush-A-Phone Decision, the Carterfone ruling permitted the direct electrical attachment of devices to the telephone company's equipment provided the operation of the network was not adversely affected. The FCC recognized the concern for potential adverse effects on the network and on the quality of service as a result of the attachment of customer-provided equipment and contemplated the continued use of network control signaling apparatus provided by a common carrier. Consequently, the FCC approved Tariffs requiring the use of a protective coupler between customer-provided equipment and the network. In November 1975, the FCC issued a report and an order instituting a registration program. Under that program, Carrier-provided protective coupling devices are no longer necessary if the customer-provided equipment is registered with the FCC or uses a registered protective coupling device. Hope this helps to answer your questions. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T Bell Labs ------------------------------ From: "Joel M. Snyder" Subject: Re: Historical Query: Carterfone Date: 31 Mar 90 01:35:25 GMT Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't I don't have great details on the Carterphone decision, but I can tell you what it was about: those things you put on your phone so your shoulder can hold the receiver. Carterphone made them; and for whatever reason, Bell didn't like them making them. I don't know whether they broke the receivers, or if Bell wanted to charge you 30 cents a month for them or what, but they contended that this product was a "customer owned" gadget and could not be put on their telephones. Carterphone, justifiably upset at this stupidity, sued, and thus was born the proposition that not all telephone equipment is created equal, and that Ma Bell has the right to "protect" herself (DAA) from such stuff. jms [Moderator's Note: Carterfone was NOT about 'those things you put on the phone so it can rest on your shoulder...'. Carterfone was some radio equipment, although the specifics escape me now. However, our good friends at the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company did make history of sorts when they sued a funeral home which had distributed plastic covers for telephone directories which had the funeral home's advertisement on it. SW Bell claimed the plastic phone book covers were 'unauthorized attachments'. That would have been circa 1957. PT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Range Date: 30 Mar 90 05:14:09 GMT Organization: very little I wanted to make a couple of comments on what the Moderator said in response to a question about cordless phone range. First, I don't think that the FCC regulates cordless phones at a 100 mw output anymore; rather they regulate the field strength of the transmitter. This usually works out to 100 mw or less though. I don't have the figures in front of me, but it is some kind of level of microvolts per square meter, measured in an RF anechoic chamber. The length of the antenna is also regulated. The wavelength is not really 8 meters, but is closer to 6 meters. In fact, it is right below the 6 meter amateur radio band. The moderator mentioned that some manufacturers optimize their phones by a liberal interpretation of the rules and by "peaking" the modulation on the unit, as he has seen done with "CB." Actually, boosting the modulation on cordless phones does not increase the signal strength, as it uses FM. Boosting modulation levels only increases deviation of the signal, which causes problems once it deviates beyond the bandwidth of the receiver. The CB radios he is thinking of use SSB or AM, and higher average modulation levels do produce higher output there. He mentioned range under "ideal atmospheric conditions", but this is not really a factor, since cordless phones are always operated in the "near field" of the transmitter, and skywave radiation does not come into effect....unless there is some horrendous "skip" coming in from out of the area by high powered transmitters on the same frequency. I THINK (but I am not sure) that some cordless phones have greater range for a couple of reasons. One is that the unit is designed to operate right up to the legal limit on radiation limits and antenna design, and the other reason is that the better quality ones probably have a LOT better receivers. This can make a tremendous difference. For instance, there are folks using cordless phones that are probably rated at 1000 feet or less in my neighborhood, yet I can hear the transmissions from their base unit a LOT further away with my VHF scanner radio. This is because the scanner radio has a much better receiver than they have in their handset. There are many factors that can affect a cordless phone's transmission quality. Computers are notorious for putting out radio frequency interference (RFI) that can really screw up the range. Also, if your handset shares a frequency with one of the popular room or "baby" monitors (49.83, 49.845, 49.86, 49.875 MHz) in the neighborhood, your range will be adversley affected, as these things transmit a constant carrier and can often be heard for blocks. In fact, my sister has a Fisher Price baby monitor, and the instruction book says to leave the transmitter on all the time. Here is another case where people don't realize how far they are transmitting, because the receivers that are supplied with these things are so lousy. If you are curious, and have a VHF scanner, here are the cordless phone frequencies. There are channelized in pairs, with the handsets transmitting on the high side: Base Handset 46.61 MHz 49.67 MHz 46.63 MHz 49.845 MHz 46.67 MHz 49.86 MHz 46.71 MHz 49.77 MHz 46.73 MHz 49.875 MHz 46.77 MHz 49.83 MHz 46.83 MHz 49.89 MHz 46.87 MHz 49.93 MHz 46.93 MHz 49.99 MHz 46.97 MHz 49.97 MHz 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: Hagbard Celine Subject: Re: US Sprint Date: 30 Mar 90 08:28:00 GMT Reply-To: Hagbard Celine Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA In article <5599@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) writes: >I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was >quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes >separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill. I gather the >same is true for MCI and other ld carriers. But *not* for AT&T. Why >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't? Or, if >they can, why don't they? AT&T doesn't presently have the facilities to bill seperately. They will soon, but you didn't hear it from me. And don't tell the LECs I told you. I don't know why AT&T thinks they can (or even would WANT to) hide such info- rmation, but they made a big deal about it. Andrew Reynhout (Internet: reynhout@wpi.wpi.edu) (BITNET: reynhout@wpi.bitnet) All hail Eris! (uucp: uunet!wpi.wpi.edu!reynhout) ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage Date: 30 Mar 90 10:00:29 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Steve Elias writes: > doesn't make a difference to me, personally -- I'd prefer the better > sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took > *significantly* longer to set up the call. Is this a difference in ears, or a difference in geographic locations? IMHO, AT&T consistently sounds either the same or a little better than Sprint. Ever since AT&T putting the calls of the masses over its own fiber and digital microwave network, I have found the quality of connections to be awesome. Remember: Sprint is using AT&T's technology; not the other way around. BTW, I find the price diffential between Sprint and AT&T to be underwhelming and if you fail to correct Sprint's billing errors, AT&T's cost is lower. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 12:17:14 PST From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon In article <5808@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Steve Elias (eli@pws.bull.com) writes: >Regarding the new ATT ads: Speed. Another ATT advantage. >difference in call setup time from my CO in Massachusetts. I notice about 3 seconds longer at home (503-635) -- probably #5 ESS. What takes Sprint so long? Is it the CO procrastinating? Maybe it's making sure no AT&T calls need service first. Could it be that Sprint's system takes a long time to see decide whether it will send the call morth or south. Or maybe Sprint has to arbitrate for access from my CO to the local Sprint switching center. How does this work? Do they have a fiber optic cable laying across the Willamette Valley that they string to every CO along the way? Can someone enlighten me? wallyk@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #221 ****************************** ISSUES 222-223 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 223 COMES NEXT THEN 222 FOLLOWS.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03270; 31 Mar 90 21:14 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae10993; 31 Mar 90 20:11 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26094; 31 Mar 90 13:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28673; 31 Mar 90 12:19 CST Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:36:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #223 BCC: Message-ID: <9003311136.ab18551@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:35:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 223 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Steven King] Tel Codes - NPA/NXX to City/State/Province Tables [Dave Leibold] Re: Cellular Phone Recordings [John G. De Armond] Cellular Call Billing Procedures [John Covert] Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Dave Horsfall] Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels [jeh@simpact.com] Announcements [TELECOM Moderator] Master Clocks Around the World [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven King Subject: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation Date: 30 Mar 90 15:11:37 GMT Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I just heard a US Sprint ad on the radio this morning. Talk about your basic misinformation! This is the kind of thing that keeps the technical illiteracy rate much too high, IMHO. Paraphrased: "For faxes you can't tell from the original, use US Sprint. US Sprint uses fiber optic lines, and they're digital so they're just as good for data as they are for voice." WARNING, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER! Correct me if I'm wrong (and keep the flamethrowers on "medium rare", please) but the quality of a fax is dependent solely upon the fax machine and not at all (or at least, very little) on the line quality. I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it. I could see Sprint's point (sort of) if my fax machine injected digital data directly into their digital network. (Holy ISDN, Batman!) But it doesn't. It's modulated to analog when I send it, and demodulated back to digital on the far end. I truly can't see where a "digital fiber-optic network" would yield a significant quality increase over, say, two tin cans and a reasonably good piece of string. (Well, I exaggerate, but you take my meaning... :-) I'm sure the reason for this misinformation is that the marketing droid doesn't know squat about the technical aspects of what he's selling. That's no excuse, mind you. --Steve King ------------------------------ Subject: Tel Codes - NPA/NXX to City/State/Province Tables Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 12:11:48 EST From: woody I have recently sent updated versions of the areas 204, 416, 604 and 902 exchange lists, and they hopefully should appear in the archives before too long. Also, thanks largely to corrections and advice from Carl Moore, there is an update area/country codes document sent along. Thanks also to those who discuss country codes for overseas dialing. These are part of a project called "Tel Codes" which seeks to compile information about exchanges, area codes and country codes. Thanks to TELECOM Digest and its participants for information on area codes, country codes and other information. I am restricting my exchange lists to Canadian area codes at this point. However, if anyone wants to compile similar information for USA, please e-mail me (djcl@contact.uucp) and perhaps we can get other area codes into the archives. [Moderator's Note: In fact, these have been moved into the Archives, and now replace the original versions of the tables you sent a couple months ago. In the Archives, switch to the sub-directory 'npa' to find them. Thanks for sending them along. PT] ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Recordings Date: 30 Mar 90 06:06:17 GMT Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) >[Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to >mobile phones. By playing the recording to you after four rings, the >assumption is you will disconnect sooner and make a circuit available >to someone else. If the phone *was* turned on and within the service >area, then it would ring fifty times if you waited that long. At least here in Atlanta with BellSouth Mobility, this is not strictly true. I've just been sitting here with my cellphone experimenting to confirm my previous experience. Here, the call goes to intercep in *about* 4 rings regardless. I say "about" because it seems to be a timed function rather than a ring count. The only exception to this is if the cellphone is busy. In that case, the intercept is immediate. >When the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base >right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells >you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and >airtime for them. The reason for four rings is because it takes about >that long for the base to query all the cells. PT] I think a lot of these parameters depend on which vendors' software happens to be running the system at the moment and what revision. I distinctly remember that right after I got my portable a couple of years ago, the calls would go to intercept almost immediately if the phone was off. We have a cellular system software house here in Atlanta and from what I've heard and seen, most operations would as well be governed by a random number generator :-) (I don't know if BSM uses that software or not so don't extrapolate on the previous statement.) John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga emory!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 23:25:51 PST From: "John R. Covert 29-Mar-1990 1951" Subject: Cellular Call Billing Procedures >Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to >mobile phones. ... >if the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base >right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells >you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and >airtime for them. The moderator is generally correct, but some details are wrong. In particular, the cellular carrier is not using a significant amount of airtime ringing you. Ringing is merely indicated by a message transmitted on the setup channel (along with all the other data flowing all the time on that channel). The protocol specifies that cellular phones are paged exactly twice at a specified interval -- twice so that a phone which was doing a rescan for the strongest setup channel won't miss a call. Only after the phone responds (also on the setup channel) can a air channel be allocated. Prior to the response, the cellular system doesn't know in which cell the phone is located -- at most the general area (group of several cells) is known if "login" has been requested. In addition, though you shouldn't be charged when you get the recording, the "A" carrier in Salinas had their switch set up wrong, causing an off-hook condition to be returned. This appears to have been corrected. And both U.K. carriers charge for reaching their recordings -- and in the U.K., cellular phones are assigned to special area codes allowing the caller to be charged for the air time, rather than the cellular phone user. >Moderator's Note: Both Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One here in Chicago >say very plainly in their literature "We do not bill for busy or unanswered >calls." They do keep track of the time, however, and if you answer >(on an incoming call) or get an answer on a call you made, then the >charges are backdated to when you actually pressed 'send' (on outgoing >calls) or when the CO started ringing you (on incoming calls). PT] Roamers visiting Chicago and using Ameritech will, however, see entries for "Unanswered Call" for all busy and don't answer calls, billed at $0.25 plus tax. Truly slimy only charging roamers. The NYNEX tariff on file with the Mass. DPU specifically states that the chargeable portion of an incoming call begins when the Send button is pressed and that the chargeable portion of an outgoing call (if it is completed) begins when the system allocates a channel (on most phones this is when the number dialled disappears from the display). NYNEX _was_ charging on incoming calls from the time the channel was allocated (beginning of ringing). I pointed out to them that they were in violation of their tariff, and they fixed it. I haven't checked again since the new switch was installed to see that they are still obeying the tariff. I also pointed out to them that charging as soon as the phone starts ringing is a public safety problem -- a driver should have time to quickly assess the traffic situation before picking up the phone. The Mass. NYNEX tariff also states that you are only charged for completed calls. As a result, each month I ask for credit for any calls that drop or are otherwise interrupted, as well as for any incoming wrong numbers. However, telemarketers who dialled my home number and were forwarded are my problem. Fortunately Massachusetts law requires autodialing telemarketers to skip the numbers of people who do not want such calls, thus there is almost no problem with automatic power dialling. Unfortunately there is still no requirement for telemarketers who manually dial numbers in the phone book or from their records to leave people alone, so I usually get some small number of calls each month. /john ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Historical Query: Carterfone Date: 30 Mar 90 21:15:27 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <5831@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Arthur_Axelrod.WBST128@xerox.com writes... >There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that >non-telco devices could be connected to the net. That led to DAAs >(standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC >registration. The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I >think). Carterfone occured in 1968. Prior to that, the FCC and state regulators all allowed the local telephone companies to have tariff restrictions prohibiting any "foreign" attachments. Only telco could attach telephone sets, modems, PBXs, etc. The sole exception was wirephoto machines, which newspapers won under a First Amendment claim! (And that didn't mean any fax, either.) Even shoulder rests for handsets were officially forbidden! (Not that they could enforce that one.) The Carterfone itself was an acoustic coupler for land mobile radios. It was used to allow oil field drill rigs (radio equipped) to patch calls into the telephone network. Ma Bell was insane to complain about it, but in their arrogance, they tried to prohibit people from using it. The FCC had changed its stripes by then and used this case to allow the competitive provision of telephone terminal equipment, and the rest is history. Before Carterfone, a 300 baud modem rented for $25/month. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 opinions are mine alone, sharing requires permission ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK Date: 30 Mar 90 03:02:03 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article <5593@accuvax.nwu.edu>, K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: | The itemized bills show time of call, duration, number dialled and cost | exclusive of VAT. The odd thing is that only calls 10 units or over are | itemized (44p + 15% VAT = 50.6p), the rest are lumped into a total shown as | "metered calls". Does anyone know why BT don't itemize all calls | irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can | provide an answer to this? Pretty much the same as Australia - all local calls are lumped under "metered calls," whereas STD/ISD calls are (optionally) itemised. I guess if every local call was itemised the list would be horrendous! Let's see, quarterly billing (say 90 days), average of three calls/day, 20 entries/page, a million phones. that's a lot of trees gone to waste! Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) Alcatel STC Australia dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ From: jeh@simpact.com Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels Date: 30 Mar 90 14:02:44 PST Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <5811@accuvax.nwu.edu>, thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to >> room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on >> every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611, Easy, assuming that by 911 and 611, you mean emergency and repair service. You dial "9" first, just like for any other outside call. > My experience (Pan Pacific hotel, Anaheim, CA): floors 1-9, dial '7' then > room number. floors 10-14, dial room number. Just down the street at the Anaheim Hilton and Towers, a similar scheme is used, if I remember correctly. Rooms are numbered like pages in some technical books, -, and that's how you dial them (ie room 203, 14th floor, is dialed as 14203; use a leading "7" for floors below 10). I do remember that there was no floor designated as "the tenth floor", and the reason given was that the phone system would have confused room phone numbers starting with "10" with something else! There *was* a floor labelled "13", though, which may say something about a triumph of technological considerations over superstitious ones... Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 10:49:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Announcements Later today, a special issue of the Digest will be distributed which will be a copy of the federal indictment in Chicago against certain Legion of Doom members. Watch for it Saturday afternoon or evening. For next: I am just about ready to announce a new FTP/Mail server for the Telecom-Archives, which will enable all of you to obtain material from the archives directly. This will be experimental; a temporary thing which may become permanent if it works well and is not too much of an imposition on the people maintaining it. PT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:02:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Master Clocks Around the World It is time to adjust our clocks once again. At 2:00 AM local time Sunday, April 1, the United States moves to Daylight Savings Time, and all clocks must be moved forward one hour. Here are just a few sources for synching your clocks: NAVOSBY, Washington DC 202-653-0351 1200 baud NBS, Ft. Collins, CO 303-494-4774 1200 baud NAVOSBY Talking Clock 202-653-1800 WWV National Bureau of Standards 5, 10, 15 megs on shortwave radio. Two lesser known sources of time information are: British Telecom Master Clock, via Telenet, @C 023421920100605,NAME,PWD Japan, VENUS-P Master Clock, via Telenet, @C 044082006004,NAME,PWD Both of these require NAME,PWD. They do not accept collect connections! The first is expressed in GMT; the latter gives GMT and JST. Both display the correct time, then immediatly disconnect. I recommend against using PC Pursuit names and passwords, and suggest using your full service Telenet account instead. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #223 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05983; 31 Mar 90 22:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10993; 31 Mar 90 19:43 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02048; 31 Mar 90 2:17 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02737; 31 Mar 90 1:12 CST Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 0:20:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #222 BCC: Message-ID: <9003310020.ab02636@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Mar 90 00:20:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 222 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [K. Denninger] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Macy Hallock] Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Hagbard Celine] Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Steve Chu] Re: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? [Hagbard Celine] Re: How to Identify Your CO Equipment [Roy Smith] Re: The Card [Matt Simpson] Re: The Card [Hector Myerston] Let's Hear it For TELECOM Digest! [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell Reply-To: Karl Denninger Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 21:16:14 GMT In article <5775@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ken Abrams writes: >In article <5675@accuvax.nwu.edu> Karl Denninger writes: >>In article <5647@accuvax.nwu.edu> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the >>>Telco's positions somewhat on this. >>I don't. >I don't either. >>Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here. >And stupid to boot (which is no real surprise). The people at the >TELCO that are handling this issue have a chronic case of tunnel >vision. They are penny wise and pound foolish. That all depends. They might have this thought out quite well, and are simply implementing what they intended to all along -- that is, have complete control of the information transport AND provision market. Look at the reality of the situation. In the places where the telco's are doing this, they are also petitioning to be allowed to provide and serve information, rather than just carry it. Now, if you were a business about to enter this business, what would you prefer? 1) That everyone have a choice whether they subscribe to your system, or use another for free or pay (the current state of affairs, given that BBS systems can operate under residential rates as long as they are not run as a business and are in someone's home) 2) That the free providers be knocked out of competition by some legal maneuvering that you can pull with your monopoly position on carrying the information -- giving you a much larger slice of the total information-provider pie. Look at what is going on. It's the same game here as it is in many other lines of business in the USA. Companies are using the legal system to get what they cannot obtain by having a better product -- because they >don't< have a better product. Instead of coming up with the killer, be-all end-all information service, and making it cheaper than anyone else's (ie: free except for the telephone connect time), the telco's are resorting to the law to kill (or maim) the sources of competition. I hope that this isn't lost on Judge Green when he rules on whether RBOC's can enter the information provider business ... they certainly aren't playing fair! Free competition? Looks more like "kill the competitor through the law" to me. I personally think it's time to discuss, in all seriousness, removing the telephone companies monopoly status in local service areas. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.uucp Date: Fri Mar 30 16:51:11 1990 Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA In article <5724@accuvax.nwu.edu> : X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9 >In response to the Moderator's comment: >I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical >switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same >extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the >lines, won't all the other phones ring that were not previously >off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the original This worked just fine back in the days of SxS CO's ... in fact we did it all the time. However, there were a couple problems with doing this: - Most of the telephone instruments had a hookswitch that disconnected the ringer of the set when it was off hook, so it would not ring. Of course, any extensions would ring just fine... - This did not damage the sets. It did not damage the electromechanical CO line equipment, either. This is not the case for electronic CO's. - What we would do is use the test board's ability to access (thru a special Connector switch in that hundreds group) and verify (monitor) the line. You could always tell an ROH (Receiver Off Hook) by the background noise. We had a ring key on the test baord for manual ring on the line (along with the usual voltage and metering keys) and we would force ring the line with this key, usually with some nice l-o-n-g rings. - In newer electronic CO's this is a much more involved process. You can monitor the line from the test board (actually a CRT with a phone associated with it), but you cannot ring it over an ROH directly, since you do not have a direct metallic connection to the line. If the subsriber's pair is metallic (not SLC or other carrier or on a Remote Line Module) you can get the frame person to put up a "shoe" on the cable pair, and use the test board for talk and ring from there. The "shoe" removes the connection to the CO's line circuit while you do this. (As I recall, doing this always elicited interesting reactions. I shook up a couple of subscribers pretty good ... they were often taking the phone off hook intentionally. Since this would tie up linefinders in a SxS office, we would ring them to get them back on hook, or "pick" them out, a form of temporary disconnect, to release the equipment.) Fun stuff, huh? You could shock the dayslights out of someone working on the cable pair this way, too. A nice way to make an installer mad at you ... usually used when you lost to that installer in the cut-throat Euchre games we often had at lunch in the garage that day. :-) >[Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the >experts? PT] I'm no expert. I'm just dangerous. Experts don't tell their secrets. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Hagbard Celine Subject: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Date: 30 Mar 90 09:30:40 GMT Reply-To: Hagbard Celine Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA In article <5814@accuvax.nwu.edu> tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) writes: >What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a >device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the >phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings >and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar >to the problem of rining an off-hook phone. >Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth >that a *lot* of people believe in? Well, I can say with certainty that they're very real. It's not all that difficult, actually. At least not with electromechanical bells, which require a bit of time before they actually start to ring. I'm not sure how transparent an infinity transmitter could be nowadays, with the advent of disposable phones that chirp in response to pulse dialing! In fact, I once saw one of these phones (packaged with an on-board radio and LED clock, even!) that would react unfavorably to any high-amplitude audio on the line. DTMF signals could be heard, and EVEN loud voices. You couldn't understand what they were saying, but it was clear that it was a voice. All of this coming out of a little piezo-element transducer. Andrew Reynhout (Internet: reynhout@wpi.wpi.edu) (BITNET: reynhout@wpi.bitnet) ------------------------------ From: Steve Chu Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions Date: 30 Mar 90 23:02:44 GMT Organization: AT&T Denver In article <5819@accuvax.nwu.edu>, asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) writes: > > the question is more directed to > > different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Methods of detecting on/off hook. In ground start, seizure is > detected by applying ground to (I think) the tip lead. In loop start, > it's detected by closing the tip/ring loop. The ground start protocol is much more than appling a gaound to the tip. To seize a outgoing trunk, the customer premise equipment, i.e. PABX, PBX, or terminal, will ground the tip and complete the current loop as for a loop start trunk. The central office applies a battery reversal and grounds the tip when it recognizes the ground. The terminal recognizes the new ground, and releases its ground. The central office reverses battery again, and the connection is completed. Clear down is just releasing loop current. No dial tone is provided by the central office. In the UK, ground start trunks can be decadic pulse or tone signalling. If there are any errors in the above descriptions, blame my poor memory and a lack of a local reference on ground start trunks. ------------------------------ From: Hagbard Celine Subject: Re: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? Date: 30 Mar 90 07:35:31 GMT Reply-To: Hagbard Celine Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA In article <5468@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew Payne writes: > I hope this subject hasn't been beaten to death before, but >why are in-state calls SO expensive? > I got my last phone bill and it had a charge for a 15 minute >in-state call (AT&T, daytime rates) for over $7! That's more than 40 >cents a minute which is far more than the highest mileage rate >(4251-5750 miles) listed on my AT&T rate schedule. And my state (West >Virginia), isn't even a big state. This is unrelated to your intrastate, interLATA question, but... I live in Rhode Island. The smallest state in the Union. NETel is my LEC. I have friends who live 10 miles away who are long distance, and others who are 15 miles away that are local. I have friends who have one line in their house that is local, and one that is LD (and they're not paying alt-CO charges!) The entire state is smaller than MOST people's local dialing areas, but they have managed to break it down into 5 toll bands, at the following rates: Mileage Full rate Eve rate N/W rate 0-11 .32 .14 .21 .09 .13 .06 12-16 .41 .20 .27 .13 .16 .08 17-22 .47 .23 .31 .15 .19 .09 23-30 .51 .24 .33 .16 .20 .10 31+ .54 .27 .35 .18 .22 .11 (obviously, rates are given for first minute and each additional minute) So, clearly, calling 17+ miles away during the daytime is more expensive than calling California...how silly. Sorry to spit numbers at you like that. But these rates are ludicrous! Andrew Reynhout (Internet: reynhout@wpi.wpi.edu) (BITNET: reynhout@wpi.bitnet) ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 14:22:06 GMT > In a recent message, Ed Ravin wrote about New York City exchanges that > have numbers (-9901 suffixes) that identify the CO equipment. This is obviously not universal. From work (212-578-9901) I get a recording telling me what exchanges are served, but not what type of gear. From home (718-636-9901) it just rings and nobody/nothing answers. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:20:54 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Re: The Card I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ... the call was answered fairly quickly (this was about 10 AM EST). The operator asked for my phone number, then read my name and address to me for verification ... so they're apparently operating from some type of data base. She had trouble pronouncing my street name, probably because she had one of the two variations I've seen on some of my junk mail that have extra consonants inserted which would twist one's tongue. She then told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit, so they probably also have some credit info. After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like employer, bank account, or anything like that. She did ask for my mother's maiden name, which she said was to be used as a password when I call in with questions about my account. I thought it was a little interesting that they had all the info they needed to do a mass mailing, but decided not to. ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 30 Mar 90 09:44 PDT Subject: Re: The Card Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Everyone calling for the AT&T Universal Card reports variations of what questions they asked. I called, was asked for home phone number and she came back with my name, address and >The amount I had been OKd for<. Then she asked my income and verification code (it doesn't have to be your mother's maiden name). No questions on how long I had lived at my address, employee etc as other report. It appears they are tied into some Big Brother-type DB which knows more about us than we suspect. I seems like that the questions asked are proportional to how much data they already have on you!. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:32 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Let's Hear it For TELECOM Digest! Re: Kent Hauser's Inquiry About Databit Telex Multiplexers, dated 29 March 1990 07:20 GMT In fact, Telecom Digest didn't get old Databit muxes, but it _did_ get Databit's oldest customer and later an export salesman for them. The reply contact was consummated by telephone at 10 AM EST, making for an approximate 8-hour elapsed time to identify sources for a needed piece of hardware. Now honestly, folks, where else can you expect such a result in today's environment? Let's hear it now for TELECOM Digest! ( accompanied by cheers, foot stomping and whistling) P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there? Donald E. Kimberlin, Telecom Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL AT&TMail or MCIMail dkimberlin Phone: (813) 725-1444 [Moderator's Blush: Thank you for your kind words. The fact is, we currently have about 35,000 regular readers in eighteen countries, and on five domestic networks in the United States. For almost any telecom-related question you might have, *someone* out there will have the answer. And as just a reminder, TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom is *always* FREE. Anyone is permitted to redistribute it, provided they do so without charge or changes of any kind to the text. Exceptions are made for mailbox fees where delivery is to a commercial email service mailbox at the subscriber's request; public access Unix user fees; and UUNET / other inter-site transmission charges. If you otherwise had to pay to read this message, *please* drop me a note today giving me the details. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #222 ******************************   ISSUES 222 AND 223 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 223 WAS BEFORE 222 AND 224 COMES NEXT. Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17534; 1 Apr 90 5:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06698; 1 Apr 90 3:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07408; 1 Apr 90 1:32 CST Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 0:54:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #224 BCC: Message-ID: <9004010054.ab01403@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:53:44 CST Volume 10 : Issue 224 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Notes on the German Telephone System [Ernie Bokkelkamp] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Ernie Bokkelkamp] Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Nick Sayer] British Telecom Master Clock [John R. Covert] Surcharge-free Card Calls; Metro.<>ITT [James R. Celoni, S.J.] 911 for Emergency From PBX [James R. Celoni, S.J.] Comparing the Carriers on FAX Quality [Jon Solomon] Correction: Legion of Doom Indictments [Mike Godwin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:42:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Notes on the German Telephone System On 18 Mar 1990 07:02, Henning Schulzrinne (1:105/42) wrote: HS>Since there has been a recent discussion on call supervision in HS>Germany, I thought I'd add the experiences of a native. I was HS>always under the impression that calls were charged starting from the HS>time the other party answered - as correctly pointed out, the clock HS>tick method and non-itemized billing would make it close to HS>impossible to really check calls. This is correct, the DBP (Deutsche Bundes Post) uses units where by each unit is equivalent to a number of seconds depending on the distance of the call. HS>[Aside: I often heard that the Bundespost, the German PTT, HS>justified its non-itemized billing system with privacy reasons. If you HS>had the data on a computer, the reasoning went, any [law enforcement HS>agency | hacker | your friendly, but nosy neighborhood employee of the HS>Bundespost ...] could potentially put together some interesting HS>information on lifestyles for a large number of subscribers, HS>even without 900 numbers. In reality, electronic offices are only HS>now replacing step-by-step switches, but there seems to be no HS>general clamoring for itemized billing. The DBP is capable of itemized billing, but the problem is slightly more complex. There is a fear in Germany that having personal details stored in computers can lead to abuse of such information. Due to this a law was instituted to control storage of personal details and what measurements have to be taken to protect this information which is called the Bundes Daten Schutz Gesaetz (Federal Data Protection Law). This law applies to all computer systems, including the systems used by the DBP. A few years ago the DBP tried to introduce itemized billing but was forced to drop it due to this law. I am not an expert on the BDSG, but over the last few years I have seen many instances where this law has caused direct changes in computer systems. One example that comes to mind is a mainframe operating system where the latest release has multiple levels of system administrator access so that the system administrator can now be restricted and can be supervised by the BDSG Beauftragter (BDSG responsible person); you are required by law to have such person under certain (most) conditions. HS>The German pay phone system deserves a special paragraph. It HS>seems to me one of the few items in the German phone system that HS>could stand being emulated around here. First, German currency makes HS>calling from a coin phone somewhat less of a pain. Having DM 5 coins HS>in common circulation (app. $3.10) avoids the agony I so vividly I can still remember my attempt to use my American Express card in NY. The public phone said credit cards only, so why not my card? I am also still waiting for a refund from AT&T after I had problems with the next phone I tried to use. That was the last time I tried public phones in the US. But I agree that the German public phones are the best. There are basically two types on pay phones: national and international. When I am in Germany and I want to phone my wife then I take 2 x 5DM coins and I speak to her until the money runs out. That is better then trying to phone from a hotel, a few years ago I stayed in a hotel in Muenich for only one night, I made one phone call to the US, the next day I paid more for the call then I paid for the room. HS>Actually, calling from a pay phone (used to be?) slightly less HS>expensive than using a regular home phone, since a unit (beyond HS>the first) costs 0.23 DM from a regular phone, 0.20 DM from a HS>payphone. Depending on who you are and where you stay calling from, a pay phone is always cheaper. If you call from a hotel then they can charge anything they like as it is a service (Dienstleistung) and service is expensive. Ernie Bokkelkamp Fido: 5:491/22 (SysOP) & 5:491/1 EWSD System Design Authority Akom-BS200: EBOK Region: LgRsa TD / ISDN Pilot Project Voice: +27 12 2251111 / +27 12 451071 PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa *** Standard disclaimer applies *** Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org [Moderator's Note: The Fido/Internet Gateway Manager reminds us that the proper form of address to here is "Telecom Digest 1:129/87" -- not Telecom Moderator or some other variation. Because this message was mis-addressed it sat in the HOG BBS dead letter file an extra day. Fido readers/writers, please take note of this when writing. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:42:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision On 21 Mar 1990 04:08, Stephen Tell (1:105/42) wrote: ST>In article <5289@accuvax.nwu.edu> hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM ST>(herman.r.silbiger) writes: ST>>For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units ST>>who want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each ST>>call costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This ST>>counter will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the ST>>bill at the end of the month. ST>How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter ST>runs at different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on? The secret is that the PTT supplies a 16Khz meter pulse on the subscriber line. On an EWSD digital exchange the subscriber has to be connected on a special subscriber line module which is capable of supplying this signal. The number of pulses depends on the actual metering in the exchange, for each unit a pulse is send to the subscriber. The determination of how many seconds per message unit depends on how the exchange has been programmed, this can either be determined in the originating exchange according to the code dialed or by the destination exchange using a similar method. However a meter connected to a subscriber line which is stepped using the 16Khz pulse can not be used to dispute your phone bill. The reason for this is reasonable simple, it is very easy to tamper with such equipment. Ernie Bokkelkamp Fido: 5:491/22 (SysOP) & 5:491/1 EWSD System Design Authority Akom-BS200: EBOK Region: LgRsa TD / ISDN Pilot Project Voice: +27 12 2251111 / +27 12 451071 PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa *** Standard disclaimer applies *** Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test Date: 31 Mar 90 06:05:12 GMT Organization: The Goose Egg, Stockton, CA Hi. I built my own phone, and have noticed a small piece of weirdness on the part of my telco. In my phone, I used a buzzer and a diode to make the ringer. The diode is in series with the buzzer and a resistor right across the line. The diode is reverse-biased with respect to the normal 48-volts-on-hook the telco gives. The result is that when the AC ring voltage comes over, the negative half, with a little drop from the resistor goes into the buzzer. This system works just fine, and was right out of a magazine. I have also tested this idea using opto-isolators instead of the buzzer to supply the ring to digital logic (I made a "blackbox" phone interface for an auto-patch in a separate project). Apart from "hook-clicks" (which are not a problem - the logic version simply relies on the processor to know the difference between falsing and rings, and the audio version isn't loud). If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone. Only one thing could cause this beep. DC across the phone line with the polarity reversed. The beep is on the order of 500-700 msec long, and only happens during the wee hours. Normally I just sleep through it, and it is nowhere near the volume level of the ring. Are they testing the line? Are they trying to tell me something? Is Charlie listening (or Gerry or Ivan for that matter)? :-) Nick Sayer - The Goose Egg public unix - 209-952-5347 (Telebit) quack!mrapple@uop.edu ! ...pacbell!sactoh0!quack!mrapple! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 13:32:29 PST From: "John R. Covert 31-Mar-1990 1627" Subject: British Telecom Master Clock The moderator was kind enough to provide the following two DTEs (reachable from any X.25 network, not necessarily just Telenet): British Telecom Master Clock, 23421920100605 Japan, VENUS-P Master Clock, 44082006004 >The first is expressed in GMT; the latter gives GMT and JST. The BT Clock gave me "BST: British Summer Time." I suspect it provides UTC in the winter, which it may erroneously call GMT. GMT no longer exists; in fact, no British Government organization is in the official timekeeping business anymore. UTC is maintained in Paris (where it never represents the local time). The DTE for the VENUS-P Clock was out of order just now. /john [Moderator's Note: Actually, you may want to try the Japan connection a different way. The address (from Telenet) @C 0440820060xx is a master address for the testing center. 'xx' can be appended or omitted, where 'xx' is two digits from 00 through 04. 00 is an echo test; the only way to exit is by typing ECHF or by getting Telenet back on the line. 01 generates a test message sent to you. 02 gets a help message. 04 is the Master Clock. Simply entering 0440820060,NAME,PWD puts you on line in menu mode, with the choices as shown above. Direct entry to any category by adding the final two digits bypasses the menu. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 20:29:41 EST From: "James R. Celoni, S.J." Subject: Surcharge-free Card Calls on Metro.<>ITT With all the talk about the per-call surcharges for Sprint's FONcard, the MCI Card (except from "around town"), the AT&T Card, and BOC cards (for intralata calls or accepted by a long-distance carrier (or AOS) for interlata calls), I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Metromedia<>ITT's "Preferred Calling Card": It is surcharge-free everywhere it is accessible via 950-0ITT, and the per-minute rates are their direct-dial rates (which last time I checked were very slightly lower than the Big Three's). It also works on BOC slide-card-in pay phones. At no extra charge you can get a card that lets you enter three-digit account codes; then the bill is sorted by code (but all slide-card-in calls are grouped under account code 000). Metro.<>ITT's calling card has no monthly minimum, fee, or catches; they might even still have their first-card-call-free-up-to-$5 promotion. (OK, there's a 75-cent surcharge if you use 800/ EASY-ITT access, but in all my travels in the five years I've had the card, I've always been able to use 950, even in Applegate, CA.) I've found transmission quality fine for voice and data; you can check it out via 10ITT+1+phone number. (But if you dial 10itt+ZERO+phone number and enter your BOC card number after the bong, you'll pay a surcharge, just like you would if you used 10ATT, 10222, or 10333.) Metro.<>ITT's customer service is good: last year they set up some 100 separate accounts for us, all with different card numbers and billing addresses, with no hassle. [For our dial-1 service we subscribe to their "Custom WATS", the winner for our usage pattern ($300-1000/mo), though we now supplement it with MCI Primetime and MCI Supersaver since we call a lot on evenings and Saturdays and have a large residence with a PBX that can route based on time of day and digits dialed. By the way, we just told MCI on which lines we wanted what plan but didn't change default carriers; the PBX chooses a trunk from the appropriate group and prefixes the call with 10222 or 10488. The total minimum is $8/mo for Primetime and $5/mo for Supersaver, even though we have three lines for each. The afternoon it took me to edit the routing tables has meant big $avings! But I digress ... Last year ITT sold their USTS long-distance service (including American Network which they'd acquired the year before) to Metromedia, and I've noticed no changes since then except that the bill is on smaller paper and their sales/service number changed to 800/ 275-0100 (M-F 8am-9pm EST). I don't think they're aggressively pursuing the residential market; I bet their rates would be higher if they advertised as much as the Big Three and had a larger proportion of low-usage accounts. Disclaimer: I'm just a satisfied customer. James R. Celoni, S.J., celoni@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 20:30:30 EST From: "James R. Celoni, S.J." Subject: 911 For Emergency From PBX If you have a PBX with automatic route selection, allowing "911" to reach the emergency folks is no problem even if 9 is the initial digit for trunk calling: just program the digit string "11" to outpulse the digits dialed with an initial "9". (Since some will dial "9-911" instead, "9-911" should just seize a trunk and just send out the "911".) And PBXs with ARS will often let you allow these calls even from "restricted" phones (those you don't want to place local calls). The only hitch is that if you set up the switch to give dialtone after the initial "9", then the "911" caller will hear it between the "9" and "11". Too bad tiny key systems and switches aren't so flexible. James R. Celoni, S.J., celoni@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 21:19:28 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: Comparing the Carriers on FAX Quality My only comment is that if you compare SPRINT to ATT for quality, you get no significant difference when you use a FAX machine, but I will bet you dollars to donuts it was directed at MCI and all the mom-pop services out there which use sattelites, low quality lines and Feature Group A service (I think, someone correct me if I am wrong). Basically, Sprint does better than ATT (not by much) but creams the other LD companies which just don't handle it well. Trust me, I had MCI service and I know that except for certain kinds of calls, they lose big on DATA and FAX calls. Even with error correction, your phone bill will reflect the difference in call duration time when you see all the time it spends correcting and how little it spends processing the message. (I'm exaggerating slightly, but only slightly). jsol ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 21:40:15 -0600 From: Mike Godwin Subject: Correction: Legion of Doom Indictments Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Just a correction to the Digest: I didn't transcribe the indictment, but merely received a file that had been transcribed already by Jim Thomas at Northern Illinois University. He agreed to my suggestion that I forward it to comp.dcom.telecom. Another correction: the word "investigation" should have been "investigate" in my introductory paragraph. Thanks. Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #224 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22730; 2 Apr 90 3:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22867; 2 Apr 90 1:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00394; 2 Apr 90 0:38 CDT Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 0:18:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #225 BCC: Message-ID: <9004020018.ab02944@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Apr 90 00:17:35 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 225 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Broadcasters to Bell: "We Just Don't Trust You" [TELECOM Moderator] Info Request: TIRKS + Netview [Warren F. Seltzer] "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [David G. Cantor] Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Ernie Bokkelkamp] Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [John G. De Armond] Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter] Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Dave Mc Mahan] Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 21:17:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Broadcasters to Bell: "We Just Don't Trust You" A growing tension over potential phone company moves into television programming and information services flared at a meeting of the nation's broadcasters Saturday when a member of the National Association of Broadcasters told Ormand Wade of Ameritech, "We just don't trust you." Ormand Wade, vice-chairman of Ameritech and former CEO of Illinois Bell was a guest speaker at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Atlanta over the weekend. His message was received with antagonism by members of the group. The convention began with a welcoming address by Edward Fritts, president of the NAB. In his remarks he said, "We began the 1980's with good old Ma Bell. Now, a decade later, Ma Bell is just a memory. In her place we have seven Baby Bells, all getting to be too big for their britches." The fears of broadcasters, as well as many newspaper publishers, result from moves by the seven regional companies, including Ameritech here in Chicago, to lift current curbws and be allowed to be a conduit for video and data services via emerging technologies, notably fiber optic phone lines. According to the broadcasters, if the Bells are allowed any incursion into this field, they (the Bells) are likely to ultimatly become more than just a conduit for information and programs. They are likely, say the broadcasters, to begin originating and producing information themselves, becoming a very formidable rival to broadcasters, cable companies and newspapers. Despite divestiture, the combined annual revenues of the sisters Bell dwarf those of the broadcast, cable and newspaper industries combined. Distrust of the telcos became pronounced and very apparent following the address by Ormand Wade of Ameritech, in which he stated, "Although we do not see production of programming as our strong suit unless it were in tandem with people such as yourselves, the transmission of such programming is something we very much want to do." Following Mr. Wade's address, a rebuttal was offered by a dubious Gary Schmedding, Vice President - Broadcasting for Lee Enterprises, of Davenport, IA, owner of five television stations. Mr. Schmedding remarked in part, "You make a pleasant appearance. You seem to be a congenial fellow, but we just don't trust you. There'll be no agreement on my part to let you in on producing programming. You have much greater resources than all of us together. It is that simple: We don't trust you." PT ------------------------------ From: "Warren F. Seltzer" Subject: Info Request: TIRKS + Netview Date: 1 Apr 90 22:59:50 GMT Organization: Teltrend, Inc., Kirkland, WA I am involved in developing a Network Mananagement application of the WAN/Telephony/Datacomm type (rather than LAN management). We want to connect our systems to our customers existing higher-level "Integrated" network managers; TIRKS and Netview, in particular. I lack some of the basic pointers to information. Please feel free to respond by any route. I had thought that Bellcore and IBM catalogs would be the best place to start, but so far that's pretty much a dry hole. (TIRKS and Netview are trademarks of very big corporations. Bellcore and IBM.) Thank you for your support, Warren Seltzer amc.com!ttrnds!warren Teltrend Inc. 12034 115th Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 206 820 6565 Voice: 206 820 6500 ------------------------------ Subject: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 01 Apr 90 08:59:44 PDT From: "David G. Cantor" A number of companies are advertising "unlimited long distance calling for fees on the order of $200.00/month. Apparently they insert a "black box" in your telco line so that, when you dial long-distance, your calls are resent to a 950 number, and then you use one of the standard carriers at bulk-rates. I would like to know what are people's experiences with such services and which companies provide the best service. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:40:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges On 24 Mar 1990 19:40, Scott D. Green (1:105/42) wrote: SG>OK, travelers, we've read about AOS's, exorbitant surcharges SG>levied by hotels, blocked access to LD carriers, etc. One upon a time ('82) I spend 4 months on training in the US. I was based in NJ and spend half of the time all over the east coast flying from training centre to training centre. When not away from base, I stayed at a motel belonging to a well known chain of Inns (the R...). After the my first period I noticed that none of the calls I made to my head office in Germany where billed. My parents are still wondering why I phoned so regular and I am still wondering how it could have happened. Ernie Bokkelkamp Fido: 5:491/22 (SysOP) & 5:491/1 EWSD System Design Authority Akom-BS200: EBOK Region: LgRsa TD / ISDN Pilot Project Voice: +27 12 2251111 / +27 12 451071 PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa *** Standard disclaimer applies *** Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Date: 1 Apr 90 02:56:57 GMT Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article <5814@accuvax.nwu.edu> tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) writes: >What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a >device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the >phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings >and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar >to the problem of rining an off-hook phone. >Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth >that a *lot* of people believe in? Yes these things do exist. I used one in the early '70s to get the goods on my boss who was, it turns out, planning on having some pot planted in my car in order to have me fired. I worked for the government at the time. I got my infinity transmitter from a friend who worked for a well known government agency whose name begins with a "C" :-). The transmitter looked just like a regular phone network device. It was installed inside a normal (at the time) dial phone. It's function depended on the fact that crossbar systems typically make up the DC path somewhat before the ring voltage is turned on. The procedure when you want to monitor ambient conversations is to dial the number of the phone containing the infinity transmitter and apply a sequence of tones to the line as the last digit is completed. A sequence is used to keep amateur sweeps (and some sophisticated ones) from finding the bug by sweeping the line with a variable frequency tone. The infinity transmitter detects these tones and picks up the line before the bell has a chance to ring. It then connects the handset microphone to the line and one can monitor the sounds in the room. The transmitter disconnects itself in the event the target phone is taken offhook. These devices work pretty well on old systems. Sometimes the ring generator would be in a state such as to put ring on the line almost immediately after the DC was made up. In that case, the phone WOULD ring. I usually would just hang up, though it was recommended that the tapper go ahead and act like he had reached a wrong number so as not to raise alarm with the target with all the single and aborted rings. The big limitation with these bugs was the quality of the handset microphone. The old phones this agency had must have been bought at a surplus auction held by Columbus! Oh yeah, about my problem. I confronted my boss behind closed doors with those tapes and tapes from a phone tap I'd installed too and we reached an agreement on a truce until I could transfer to another agency. Last time I'd heard, he'd been arrested for sexual battery to a subordinate. So I guess he got his :-) BTW, to any of you folks who buy government surplus equipment - I never did go back and retrieve the transmitter. Who knows, you may just own it now :-) John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga emory!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 15:17:04 EDT I just wanted to add two more numbers to your time sources list. These numbers provide the output of WWV and WWVH: WWV +1 303 499 7111 WWVH +1 808 335 4363 Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 +1 412 624 6424, FAX +1 412 624 6436 | JJC@PITTVMS.BITNET | jjc@cisunx.UUCP JJC@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU or jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu [Moderator's Note: I assume by now, a day after the fact, that everyone adjusted their clocks forward one hour Sunday morning. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation Date: 1 Apr 90 20:14:53 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <5882@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!king@uunet.uu.net writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong (and keep the flamethrowers on "medium rare", >please) but the quality of a fax is dependent solely upon the fax >machine and not at all (or at least, very little) on the line quality. >I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything >but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it. As I recall, the quality of a fax is governed by the quality of the input scanner for the most part and governed by the quality of the printer to a lesser degree. Most of the picture noise is picked up in the initial scan, that is why computer generated faxes look so much cleaner than those that are scanned, even from good copy. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 23:54:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives A new program running at Princeton University now allows non-Internet sites to access ftp'able files from anywhere. In this message, I will discuss only how it works in reference to the Telecom-Archives. A complete help file is available from the site offering the service. The program is called BITFTP, and it is intended mainly as a way for Bitnet sites to work-around the lack of ftp to Internet sites. Tests have shown it will work for Fido and UUCP sites as well, but with reservations, as noted below: 1) Send a letter to: (From Bitnet sites): bitftp@nucc.bitnet (From Fido/UUCP sites): bitftp@nucc.princeton.edu It's the same machine; just approach it from the most direct route. 2) If you can include a 'reply-to' line in your envelope, I recommend you do so, since some mailers have a tendency to munge 'from' lines. 3) Leave the subject line empty, or put whatever you want there. It is not relevant. 4) Begin with the FIRST line, and be left-justified. Enter FTP commands as follows: FTP lcs.mit.edu USER anonymous CD telecom-archives ASCII GET file.name BYE Use UPPER CASE for the ftp commands, and substitute the name of the file you want in place of 'file.name'. Put the commands in the order shown. 5) Mail your letter. You will get back at least two replies. One will be the file requested, in the form of mail to you. The second reply will be a letter showing your commands, and how the remote site interpreted them in filling your request. If the file does not exist, or if the ftp (via telnet) connection could not be established, you will be so advised. 6) Allow time for a reply, and do not submit duplicate requests! It may take a day or two for your letter to reach Princeton, a day or two for the request to be processed and mailed back, and another day or two for the reply to reach you. This is a worst-case scenario; in tests we found it was much faster, but don't rely on it. 7) For a complete help file giving very detailed information about the workings of BITFTP, send a note to the same address with the word 'HELP' as the first and only word in the message. 8) A word of caution and advice: Our back volume files are ** large **, as is the telecom-recent file when it is near cut off. The telecom-recent file is cut off after the x00th and x50th issues of each volume. It is then renamed something like '1990.vol10.iss151-200'. Then it is zeroed out and started over. I do not recommend that you pull telecom-recent merely to get one or two missing issues out of the middle. Instead, continue writing to me to request them. This program was specifically designed for Bitnet users. Even they should use some restraint in pulling large quantities of files. The large files are broken into parts and mailed. In a test, the telecom-recent file was broken into ten parts, each part mailed separately to me! Fido and UUCP users should exercise great caution. Make sure your sysop is aware of ** how large ** some of these files are before you order them. Don't get your neighbor sites angry at you. There should be no problem in ordering the smaller files, and the larger ones ** occassionally ** with your site administrator's okay. To avoid getting back a reply of 'no such file found', the first thing you should do is order the file 'index.to.archives', and work from that in placing future requests. Internet users should avoid this method entirely and continue using regular ftp methodology, addressing requests to 'ftp lcs.mit.edu'. ----- excerpts from the Help File for BITFTP ----- Remember, to use BITFTP, send mail containing your ftp commands to bitftp@nucc.bitnet. The first command to BITFTP must be "FTP" or "HELP". [PT Note: However, 'bitftp@nucc.princeton.edu' also works okay.] You will also receive a mail file containing a log of your ftp session. In that mail file, entries prefixed by ">" are your original commands; those prefixed by ">>" are your commands as interpreted by BITFTP and passed to TCPIP; those prefixed by ">>>" are your commands as interpreted by TCPIP and passed to the remote host; those prefixed by "<<<" are messages from the remote host; and those prefixed by ">>>>" are completion messages from BITFTP. If BITFTP is unable to connect to the host you specify, it will send you mail after the first attempt, but will keep trying at intervals over three days. The only additional mail files you will receive will be when the connection is made successfully or when BITFTP gives up after three days. Questions about BITFTP and suggestions for improvements should be directed to Melinda Varian, MAINT@PUCC on BITNET or MAINT@pucc.princeton.edu on the Internet. The author gratefully acknowledges the use of the FTP SUBCOM interface written by David Nessl (DAVID@NERVM), the SENDJANI EXEC written by Alan Flavell (SY07@I1.PH.GLA.AC.UK), the uuencoding utility written by John Fisher (FISHER@RPIECS), and the RFC822 parsing routine written by Eric Thomas (ERIC@LEPICS). NOTE: If you have any complaints/suggestions about the way any of these routines work in BITFTP, please send them to MAINT@PUCC (Melinda Varian), not to the authors. ====================================== And my thanks to Peter Weiss for bringing this to my attention. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #225 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22436; 3 Apr 90 3:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23909; 3 Apr 90 1:52 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30679; 3 Apr 90 0:47 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 0:02:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #226 BCC: Message-ID: <9004030002.ab04643@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Apr 90 00:00:04 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 226 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Johnny Zweig] Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Allyn Lai] Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Bruce Perens] Re: The Card [Johnny Zweig] Re: The Card [Ray Spalding] Re: 800 Service Providers [Bob Stratton] Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT advantage [A Donaldson] Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Glen Overby] Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [John Higdon] Re: Nicad Memory [Harry Burford] Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [Dan Margolis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 19:28:13 GMT It is interesting to note the difference between two popular versions of the Infinity Transmitter folklore: the real device is basically a bug that you install in someone's phone and that uses the line as a means of sending back and the handset mike as a pickup; misunderstanding of the phrase "this device allows you to call up and listen through the handset mike without the handset being picked up" leads people to believe there is a device I can use on _my_ end to call an untampered phoneset and listen through the handset. The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone. Just shows to go ya.... Johnny Bug ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Allyn@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Date: Sun, 1-Apr-90 12:07:27 PDT I remember a good article in a British electronics journal ("Electronics" I think) last year that went into detail about bugs and surveillence gear. A good description of infinity bugs was given. I have the article somewhere. Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Perens Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Date: 2 Apr 90 07:34:47 GMT Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) writes: >What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? One day, back when I was in Junior High, I spent a fun day in the U.S. patent office looking up plans for wire-tapping devices. I think many of the patents belonged to Western Electric, but it was a long time ago. That's still a good place to look if you want to understand these things better without breaking any laws. They used to charge $1.50 to photocopy any patent - it may cost more now. The infinity bug (also called the "harmonica bug") relied on the CO connecting the audio path to the phone before ringing. A tone-sensitive relay was wired into the phone, and the party wishing to bug the phone called the phone and transmitted the tone (blew into a harmonica) before ringing started. The relay picked up the line before it could ring. If the bugged party happened to pick up the phone, they would have to hang up to get dial tone. I guess it sometimes took a few tries to get the connection, thus someone might get a lot of ring-and-hang-ups if they were bugged with this device. Do modern COs still work that way? bp ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: The Card Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 20:05:18 GMT SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: >I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ... [stuff deleted] >After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of >ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like >employer, bank account, or anything like that.... She asked for your social security number. With that she can ping TRW or any of dozens of other credit reporting companies to find out if anyone ever has filed a derogatory credit report against you. So, without any fuss and unbeknownst to most people, a considerable amount of "credit-related info" is disclosed when applying for the Card. (Which I did, BTW.) Johnny Big-Bro-is-watchin' ------------------------------ From: Ray Spalding Subject: Re: The Card Date: 3 Apr 90 02:50:56 GMT Reply-To: Ray Spalding Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology In article <5879@accuvax.nwu.edu> SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 222, Message 7 of 9 >I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ... the call was answered >fairly quickly (this was about 10 AM EST). The operator asked for my >phone number, then read my name and address to me for verification ... >so they're apparently operating from some type of data base. >She had trouble pronouncing my street name, probably because she had >one of the two variations I've seen on some of my junk mail that have >extra consonants inserted which would twist one's tongue. She then >told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit, so they probably >also have some credit info. >After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of >ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like >employer, bank account, or anything like that. She did ask for my >mother's maiden name, which she said was to be used as a password when >I call in with questions about my account. I thought it was a little >interesting that they had all the info they needed to do a mass >mailing, but decided not to. I just applied for the Card. A rep answered on the first ring, and asked if I was applying for the Card. (I said yes, of course). After I gave my "primary" phone number and name, I got the "full" set of questions: home address, social security number, years at address, own or rent, am I employed, employer, work phone, salary range (in brackets of $10K, or > $50K; ostensibly for purposes of evaluating credit-worthiness), mother's maiden name (for security during phone transactions). The rep also asked how I had obtained their 800 number; I replied "a computer bulletin board". (Hope that doesn't hurt my credit rating :-)). If I had had more presence of mind, I would have said the TELECOM Digest. (I've seen TV and magazine ads, but the articles here, rather than those, convinced me it was a good deal). The rep recapped the information I gave, and said I'd be hearing in a couple of weeks if I met their approval, and if so, in 4 weeks or so I'd receive the Card. I told her I'd heard that sometimes they have prior information about some applicants. Affirmative "uh huh". I told her that didn't seem to be the case with me, and asked her why. She confimred that this was true, and added sincerely, "I don't know". I didn't bother asking for her supervisor :-). They must have a weak database, however, because I constantly get "preapproved" invitations for credit cards in the junk mail. Although AT&T is my dial-1 carrier, I've never been a "phone card" holder with any company; perhaps their database is phone-card based rather than credit-rating based. Ray Spalding, Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0275 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cc100aa Internet: cc100aa@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Subject: Re: 800 Service Providers Date: 2 Apr 90 03:22:07 GMT Reply-To: Bob Stratton Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA According to my list, the 275's belong to ITT (United States Transmission Systems). I hope this helps. Bob Stratton | UUCP: strat@cup.portal.com, strat@well.sf.ca.us Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32 Delphi: RJSIII Prodigy: WHMD84A Alexandria, VA | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.) 703.591.7101 (Office) ------------------------------ From: Al Donaldson Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage Date: 31 Mar 90 18:04:02 GMT Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA In article <5808@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: > In any case, I think that ATT's ads are easily as sleazy as any of the > other long distance companies. I think ATT makes a fundamental mistake here. If you're going to air ads that annoy your viewers, you should't put your phone number on the screen. Especially an **800** number. So you're not calling up ATT to tell them what you think about their ads? "Welll, I am nowwwww." Al ------------------------------ From: Glen Overby Subject: Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV Date: 1 Apr 90 01:09:47 GMT Reply-To: Glen Overby Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo In article <5158@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert Gutierrez 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. I got a different story about a year ago. My roommate at the time had tried getting me to pay part of his cable bill by dangling their ad in the August 1988 "Cabletime" in front of me, so I called and got someone who seemed fairly knowledgeable. I also posted a query to the net about their service, and got one whole response (but a good one), and a bunch of other people asking "who are they and what's their phone number". The guy from XPRESS told me that their "feed" was over CNN and WTBS and did not require any additional hardware at the cable company end (the person who responded to my net query said the cable company decodes the signal from CNN or WTBS). Their software would run on any PC with a IBM compatable serial port. I didn't ask if it was ASCII so I could convert it to something inews could eat, allowing me to throw their software away and use rn. At the time XPRESS had been in business for four years and had 25,000 subscribers. They carried 30 wire services and some other stuff like the Best of Bix. I never bought into it, since I'm already enough of a newsaholic. Isn't Brad Templeton's ClariNet just getting the same kind of feeds from UPI, et al. and reselling them over News rather than cable? There was an article in the January or February CACM about a similar service offered in the Boston area. Glen Overby uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet) ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services Date: 2 Apr 90 02:32:00 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon "David G. Cantor" writes: > A number of companies are advertising "unlimited long distance calling > for fees on the order of $200.00/month. Apparently they insert a > "black box" in your telco line so that, when you dial long-distance, > your calls are resent to a 950 number, and then you use one of the > standard carriers at bulk-rates. Yes, and probably using a stolen authorization code. Several years ago we went through the era of "flat-rate" long distance. Without exception, it was fraudulent. Back then, you would sign up with the company and they would give you a 950 number to call (it was usually Sprint or MCI) and an authorization code that would allow you to make as many calls as you like for $200 a month. They would concoct some excuse or another as to why they would have to keep giving you new authorization codes, but now it seems that they can make this invisible to the "customer" via dialers. It is very reassuring to note that even the scam artists keep up with available technology. > I would like to know what are people's experiences with such services > and which companies provide the best service. If by "best service" you mean "how long is it before the gendarmarie come banging on your door", the answer is about 2-3 months. You will probably get off light if you cooperate. I'd be happy to eat my words if wrong, but think about it for a moment. Many companies, including my humble self, spend many times $200 a month for long distance. If something like this was legitimate, I (and a stampede-load of others) would cancel my Sprint, AT&T, and WATS services in a second. The next call you make should probably be to the authorities! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Harry Burford Subject: Re: Nicad Memory Date: 2 Apr 90 13:11:11 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita KS FINBERG@ebvxcl.draper.com writes: >In a recent Digest Tad Cook claimed Nicad Memory was a "myth". >I beg to differ! > Memory is a real problem with Nicad batteries. The >problem occurs on long charge hardly ever/never discharge cycles. >I have rescued more HT220 batteries from police service than I >can lift! I have been using a gms403 charger from Control Products Unlimited (215)-383-6395. It will automatically charge ni-cad batteries. You hook up the battery and the device puts a 400 mA load on it to discharge it down to .9V per cell. Then it hits it with a 4A pulse of voltage and then checks the voltage. It continues with this PULSE-CHECH procedure on about a 1hz rate until the terminal voltage of the battery is reached. The pulse tends to burn out any 'wiskering' that causes ni-cads to get memory. Also, since you aren't using a constant Voltage or Current source, the battery doesn't get hot. I've been able to recover about 60% of the batteries that normally would have been thrown away. My 600mA 7.2V radio battery pack is typically charged in about 50 min. My 12V 2A battery pack for the lap top computer takes 2 hr. to charge. A time fail safe prevents the charger from running forever if you have a bad cell that won't let the pack reach terminal voltage. The charger is expensive, but I figure it has paid for itself since I now get all my battery products without chargers if possible, and I have saved several expensive battery packs. Harry Burford - NCR Peripheral Products Division, Printer Products PHONE: 316-636-8016 TELEX: 417-465 FAX: 316-636-8889 SLOWNET: 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita KS CALL: KA0TTY C-$erve: 76367,151 SS: 9.5 Harry.Burford@Wichita.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 17:39:03 EDT From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX John L. Shelton writes: >When I forward my line to an outside number, inside callers get my >voice mail, but outside callers get a busy signal. My PBX service >provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of >"ground start," but this sounds bogus to me. >Anyone have experience with this scenario? This is probably not bogus. One problem with loop start trunks is that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect. If your PBX were to forward an incoming trunk to an outgoing trunk with no in-system user and both trunks fail to disconnect, your system may never hang-up the trunks. With at least one of the two being ground start, you can be sure one of the trunks will get disconnected and the system can disconnect the other -- unless, of course, the ground-start trunk is connected to a machine that never hangs up. It's better to make sure both trunks are ground start. Some PBXs let you override this restriction, but you run the risk of busying out your trunks. Dan Margolis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #226 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25264; 3 Apr 90 4:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21527; 3 Apr 90 2:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23909; 3 Apr 90 1:52 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 1:23:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #227 BCC: Message-ID: <9004030123.ab20785@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Apr 90 01:22:36 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 227 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: US Sprint [Steve Elias] Re: Notes on the German Telephone System [Tom Ace] Re: Overhearing Conversations [Scott Hazen Mueller] Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Blake Farenthold] Re: ATT Smart About PINs [Tom Perrine] Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number [Brad Carlson] DMS-100 Problems [Robert Masse] Did Legion of Doom Plant "Time Bombs" Also? [Newsbriefs via Don H. Kemp] Enhanced Caller ID Trial [Communication Week via Ken Jongsma] London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? [Kevin Hopkins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Elias Subject: Re: US Sprint Organization: disclaimer Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 15:47:02 GMT In article <5871@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Steve Elias writes: >> ...better sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took... >Is this a difference in ears, or a difference in geographic locations? Perhaps both. My ears have "low normal" sensitivity. The aspect of sound quality that is most apparent to me is volume. I believe that this is the most important aspect of phone connection quality to *most* people, regardless of their hearing sensitivity. 'Clarity' with both carriers is quite good, but the extra tad of volume from Sprint makes a big difference to me. I never hear any background hiss, either -- but that's not to say that it isn't there. >IMHO, AT&T consistently sounds either the same or a little better than >Sprint. Maybe in my case, IMHO stands for 'in my hearing impaired opinion', although technically my hearing is 'normal'. >Remember: Sprint is using AT&T's technology; not the other way around. Precisely. ATT's advantage is their pre-divestiture monopoly. In my humble opinion, this is unfair and yet another reason why my business goes to Sprint. Disclaimer: infinite. please keep the lawyers away from me. Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com, 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 13:05:01 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: Re: Notes on the German Telephone System Ernie Bokkelkamp writes: >But I agree that the German public phones are the best. At their best they are quite good, but some older models exhibited mechanical problems; their coin mechanisms would fail to recognize genuine German coins. Once, while talking on one of them, I was constantly putting 1 DM coins in; it was returning them to me about 90% of the time. Frustrating! This was not an isolated instance; I experienced it on several phones, and heard that it was not an uncommon occurrence. For someone who expected German machinery to be very reliable, I was disappointed. Who knows, though; maybe they had to make the mechanisms very selective in order to keep similarly-sized foreign coins out of their coin boxes, and had trouble keeping the things reliable with such close tolerances. Calling the US from German pay phones usually works well, with a surprisingly fast call setup time. When equal access first came to my CO in Colorado, I gave Sprint a try; the time to set up a call to California using Sprint was substantially longer than what I was used to when calling the same number from German pay phones. (The situation may have changed since then; that was in 1985. I found it amusing at the time.) The Deutsche Bundespost maintained an interesting museum on communication technology in West Berlin when I was there (1985). They had examples of various models of German phones over the years on display (including a good number of pay phones), pieces of switching gear, and other exhibits. One exhibit proudly explained that a German man had invented the telephone slightly before Alexander Graham Bell did. Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com ------------------------------ From: Scott Hazen Mueller Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations Date: 2 Apr 90 21:25:23 GMT Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix In article <5855@accuvax.nwu.edu> The Moderator writes: >Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been crosstalk. Wires >get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes poor, etc. On occassion >when I have had to wait a few seconds for dial tone, the amount of crosstalk >was incredible [...] It can be fun to listen to! If you don't get it all the time, that is... I've been meaning to ask about a crosstalk problem that I've been having for some time now. I have multiple lines running from an inside jack in the back bedroom under the carpet to a line of jacks in the front office. I had to do it this way as my wife didn't agree that we should use the master bedroom for the computer (:-) and there were no jacks in the office. I used 6-wire station cable from a local electronics store to extend the lines across the house, with 3 lines on the cable. One of the lines is the house voice line, and the problem that I have been having is that I get significant crosstalk from my main modem on one of the adjacent lines. Since the modem runs about 50% of the time, there is almost never a time when we have a completely quiet line, and we have had problems with the answering machine not properly detecting hangup because of the crosstalk from the modem - it's a quite distinctive sound, and I can recognize it in a flash, even on the answering machine. Does anyone reading Telecom know of any techniques to isolate the lines better? I'd like to avoid tearing up the carpeting again; something along the lines of installing a dinky resistor in one of the jacks would be more my speed. I'm pretty sure that the problem is not in the house wiring; before I installed my office jacks I had some extension cable running down the hallway carrying the modem line, and we had no problems then. Also, I was advised at one time that the problem was because the house line was unterminated, but wiring in the jack and putting a phone in didn't seem to help. Thanks for any help! Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 10122 Amador Oak Ct.|(408) 253-6767 |Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Cupertino, CA 95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public [Moderator's Note: And that is why 'they' always say don't have a data line in the same cable run as a voice line. I have a one-(turn) button two line phone on the desk with this terminal and modem. They share a small piece of four-conductor cable for my other line. When the modem is running there is always a slight bit of bleeding onto the voice line. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 12:30:36 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World Patrick missed a couple of other time sources... WWV-Voice (Ft. Collins) 303-499-7111 WWVH-Voice (Kekaha) 808-355-4363 They say phone propagation delays could cause these (and any dial up time services) to be off by as much as 30 milliseconds. There is also a "modem" clock operated by Leitech Video that gives the time at 300 baud (Eastern, I think) ... but when I ran my time-set program on the Mac it doesn't look like it made the switch last night as my -1 adjustment to Central time resulted in the clock being an hour behind. The Leitech clock's phone numbers are: VA- 804-424-5631 Canada 416-445-9408 I also believe either WWV or NAVOSBY has a 1-900 number but I don't have it handy. 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: NAVOSBY has the pay-number: 1-900-410-TIME. But why pay 900 prices for a call when you can get it for 12 cents on Reach Out at that time of night. PT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: ATT Smart About PINs Date: 2 Apr 90 19:00:33 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article <5860@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 220, Message 11 of 15 >I just got a new corporate ATT card. It can be used with our >company's 800 number or for any other phone call. It looks like a >damned nice service. One thing that I thought was really smart was >that ATT does not print the last 4 digits (PIN) on the card. This was >at the request of the customer (Bull). Good move! I just called (800) CALL-ATT, and asked about getting a card without the PIN (to replace my current one). The service rep and her supervisor were both amazed that anyone could get a card without a PIN embossed on it. I suggested that more people would like this option and the reponse was "Really? Why would they bother? Then they'll have to remember the PIN!" Sigh. Tom Perrine (tep) Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA (619) 455-1330 Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM GENIE: T.PERRINE UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 22:20:08 -0500 From: Brad Carlson Subject: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number Does anyone know the number to call that returns a voice recording of the number that you are calling from? I threw the number away several years ago when I couldn't think of what it might be useful for, and have kicked myself several times since when I have needed someone to call me at a pay phone, been apartment sitting for friends who have removed the little paper tags with the phone number on them, etc. Thanks in advance, carlsonb@thor.acc.stolaf.edu [Moderator's Note: It varies from community to community; from CO to CO ... no one number applies everywhere. Maybe someone knows the number in your town, if there is one. PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Masse Subject: DMS-100 Problems Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 23:40:24 GMT My friend and I were talking yesterday and I we accidentally crashed the phone line. We are on the same CO and we both have conference calling (three-way calling) and call waiting. I forget the whole process, but what happened is I did ring-back using my three-way calling with my friend on the other line and later I answered the first ring. Then I listened for five seconds (the long beeeeep) and then it went normal. I could listen to my friend but he couldn't hear me. Later on I clicked my line to go to call waiting and it was empty except for two call waiting beeps at the same time (beep-beep), similar to distinctive ringing and then it went totally dead. Then I heard a lonnnng ring and it picked up and I heard two people talking. But they couldn't hear me. Now I was wondering if any one else had a similar experience with their phone line on a DMS-100 switch? Thanks, Robert Masse (514)466-2689/home Internet: robert@altitude.CAM.ORG UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert ------------------------------ Subject: Did Legion of Doom Plant "Time Bombs" Also? Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 16:03:54 EST From: Don H Kemp As reported in AT&T's Consultant Liason Program electronic newsletter "Newsbriefs": LEGION OF DOOM -- ... A government affadavit alleged that in June hackers believed to be Legion of Doom members planted software "time bombs" in AT&T's 5ESS switching computers in Denver, Atlanta and New Jersey. These programs ... were defused by AT&T security personnel before they could disrupt phone service. ... New York Newsday, p. 15, 4/1. Don H Kemp B & K Associates, Inc. Rutland, VT uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk ------------------------------ Subject: Enhanced Caller ID Trial Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 10:34:48 EDT From: Ken Jongsma From an article by Dawn Bushaus in this week's [Communication Week]: Next month a small group of US West Communications Group Inc. customers here (Grand Forks, ND) will participate in a test of Northern Telecom Inc's Integrated Systems Division's caller ID software. The software lets a caller's name be displayed with or instead of, the caller's number. The Northern Division, based in Raleigh, NC, hopes the new product will be an answer to some of the privacy concerns that are impeding some caller identification proposals. US West ... confirmed last week that it will use the software at a technical trial here, where it is currently conducting a trial of CLASS services including Caller ID. The US West Inc. subsidiary will use the software to display both the caller's number and name, according to Steve Hammack, US West manager of marketing communications. Northern believes other telephone companies may choose to use the software to alleviate customers' privacy concerns by supplying only the caller's number. Most opposition to Caller ID service comes from people with unlisted numbers who don't want people to call them back, a Northern spokesman said. "Providing the name instead of the number would take care of that," the spokesman said. The software is capable of providing only the name, only the number or both pieces of information. "It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's the solution," said Peter Bernstein, an analyst with Probe Research, Inc., Cedar Knolls, NJ. "It doesn't do anything for the Big Brother issues plaguing Caller ID." Customers who do not have unlisted numbers still potentially could be at the mercy of retail companies. When customers call these companies the retailers would be able to gain access to their names using Caller ID, and subsequently gain access to their numbers through directory assistance or telephone books, Bernstein said. "This whole Caller ID imbroglio is missing the point," he added. "The service is identifying the billing number and it's hard to say inanimate objects have privacy rights." Ken Jongsma ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Smiths Industries ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Subject: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Mon, 02 Apr 90 16:57:55 +0100 From: Kevin Hopkins It seem that the London 071/081 split is effective from today. In a recent advertisement in `Computing', a trade magazine in the UK, BT asked users to reprogram their PBXs, Faxes, modems, etc. to use the new 071/081 codes instead of 01. It advises users to reprogram their equipment: "... preferably between 2 April and 5 May. To help with reprogramming during this period, we will ensure that all calls dialled correctly with the new 071 or 081 code, as well as the 01 code, are connected." It seems there will be no grace period after 6th May as the advertisement also states: "And if you make a mistake after 6 May, your call will be intercepted by a free recorded announcement which gives the correct procedure. The announcement is made without Special Information Tone (SIT)." I presume the SIT is monitored by automatic equipment but why refrain from using it? Also in the same advertisement BT detail how to leave off the area code when dialling an intra-area call (a real toughie that one) but add: "If you use the new code when phoning a number in the same area, the call will still be connected." This also works for intra-area calls outside London as per a previous message of mine to the digest. This seem to be further proof that the same number can be used in any part of the UK to contact the same phone. No worries about whether you do/do not need the area code. BT have now been posting advertisments about the 071/081 split on large and prominent hoardings outside London for at least the last week. How is their international advertising campaign (if it exists) proceeding? Kev. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #227 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20571; 4 Apr 90 2:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29752; 4 Apr 90 1:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18532; 4 Apr 90 0:00 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 23:46:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #228 BCC: Message-ID: <9004032346.ab05622@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Apr 90 23:45:25 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 228 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Overhearing Conversations [John Higdon] Re: Overhearing Conversations [Scott Fybush] Re: FAXes on VAXes [Bernie Roehl] Re: FAXes on VAXes [Bob Sutterfield] Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [William L. Ware] Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [Ken Jongsma] Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [Hector Myerston] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [David Gast] Re: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook [Per G|tterup] Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest! [Kent Hauser] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations Date: 3 Apr 90 03:21:08 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Scott Hazen Mueller writes: > One of > the lines is the house voice line, and the problem that I have been > having is that I get significant crosstalk from my main modem on one > of the adjacent lines. > [Moderator's Note: And that is why 'they' always say don't have a data > line in the same cable run as a voice line. I have a one-(turn) button > two line phone on the desk with this terminal and modem. They share a > small piece of four-conductor cable for my other line. When the modem > is running there is always a slight bit of bleeding onto the voice line. PT] There must be voodoo or magic involved in maintaining isolation. My phone wiring must qualify as the biggest gawdawful mess anyone has ever seen anywhere. Trunks run in 3 and 4 pair IW, sometimes coupled with extensions or sometimes with other trunks. Some modems go through the PBX, some don't. There is 25 pair cable running all over the house with stations and trunks appearing in random combinations. Never, but never, have I ever heard the slightest trace of crosstalk from any of the five or six modems. There are three Telebits and a hodge podge of slower modems, at least one of which is off-hook at any given moment. The speakers are all turned off, so it would be very evident if modem noise were to be heard. It never is. If telephone circuits are properly balanced and terminated, there is little chance that any crosstalk will occur, regardless of where they are run. It is important, however, that the two conductors comprising the circuit run in exactly the same path; to do otherwise (one wire running down this cable, the other down that) is to unbalance the circuit (physically) and creates a possibility for mutual induction. There is absolutely no reason data (modem) and voice circuits can't be run in the same cable. They certainly are outside your house! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 13:04:07 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations In my room I have a voice line and a modem line running together on cheap 4-conductor phone cord for about 50 feet. I have yet to experience any crosstalk problems with the modem -- and the modem is almost always on. Then again, I'm so close to the PBX here that voice is quite loud -- enough so as to block out any crosstalk I might otherwise hear. The modem has never confused the answering machine, either. Scott Fybush ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Re: FAXes on VAXes Date: 3 Apr 90 18:27:11 GMT Organization: University of Waterloo In article <5780@accuvax.nwu.edu> JWMANLY%AMHERST.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (John W Manly) writes: >Ideally, we would like a FAX machine that prints on normal paper (as >opposed to thermal paper), and has an interface on it so that it can >take input from the VAX (through a standard RS-232 port) as well as a >regular scanner. We'd also like it for under $3000 if possible, >although preliminary investigation suggests this is WAY too low. Really? I find that surprising. You can buy Fax cards for a PC for less than $1000. Even if you had to buy a PC as well, you're looking at way under $3000. Run a serial line from your VAX to the PC, and away you go. (If you don't already have a laser printer on your VAX, you'll probably want one for printing the faxes; you'll also want a small scanner on your PC). 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] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 09:09:15 EDT From: bob@morningstar.com Subject: FAXes on VAXes Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield You might check the traffic in the newsgroup alt.fax, and its accumulated archives on nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu in the directory pub/fax/fax-archives/*. ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services Date: 3 Apr 90 22:00:40 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I would also like any info possible on this. *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: Read on in this issue ... the consensus seems to be there is no such thing as a legitimate service of this sort. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 19:53:27 EDT From: Ken Jongsma David Cantor asks if $200/month for unlimited calling is a good deal ... The answer is probably not. Look at the following examples: Sprint Plus Evening/Night/Weekend Rate = ~.12/minute (2000-3000 miles) Sprint Day Rate = ~.24/minute (2000-3000 miles) If all your calls are in the evening, you'd have to be on the phone in excess of 27 hours a month before you broke even. All day rate calls would require 13 hours before breakeven. When you consider that on top of the above, many of these resellers are under investigation for fraud: They have a limited number of lines available so callers always get busy signals. Not to mention poor line quality since your call is being bounced around a lot more than it needs to be. I'd be surprised if they really are using a 950 number, though you could just as easily get busy signals there if they don't have enough trunks. If they are using a 950 number, you should be able to use them without the black box. At least then you would be able to use other carriers if their trunks were busy. If you don't have to sign a contract, why not try it and let us know how it works? I wouldn't sign any contracts though. Ken Jongsma ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Smiths Industries ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 1 Apr 90 08:23 PDT Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] A local variation of this is to offer unlimited calling over >legit< lines for $XXX per month. You dial the number, get dial tone and dial the desired number. Simple, legal and unregulated. The catch - a Grade-of-Service of about P.9999. Lets see... one line pre-subcribed to Acme at 14 cents per minute * 60 * 24 * 30 is about $6K a month worse case, make that around $4K for busies, no answers and call setups etc. Find around 20 suckers to give you $200 each to pay for the line. Find another 50 suckers for profit, set up the service and leave town. It seems like these guys make arrangements to provide an acceptable service for a couple of days and then .... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 22:59:59 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) wrote: >In article <5289@accuvax.nwu.edu> hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) >>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. >How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter runs at >different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on? In Holland, for example, there is a counter by the phone. It looks rather like an odometer. Every so often it clicks and one more ``message unit'' (I don't know the exact name in Holland) is charged. The PTT varies the rate of the clicks with the distance of the calls. It really is not so difficult although I do not know the exact mechanism used to increment the timer. As such, no large database is needed. In fact, a much smaller database is needed in Holland than in the U.S. In the U.S. the phone company keeps a record of all outgoing billable calls (in some localities ZUM calls are not itemized); in Holland only the beginning and ending counts for the billing cycle are needed. > With electric power, the maximum number of rates I can think of a > single customer having to contend with is peak/off-peak ... When electric utilities implement gadgets to bill different electric rates for different times of the day, there is nothing to prevent them from implementing more than peak/off-peak. They could have, for example, very low, somewhat low, medium, high, peak, brownout, and blackout. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ From: Per G|tterup Subject: Re: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 08:52:27 GMT julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: || 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. || 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. It is luckily not so anymore. Now the Danish telcos have moved on and accepted that what they sell is service, and therefore you don't have to pay for non-connections. They now only change from the moment the person in the other end picks up the phone, and this applies to international long-distance calls as well. Calls to the operator are now free, except if you need some kind of special service, like the time or to enquire about a subscriber (number etc.). Emergency calls are still free as well! ||Think how much better service could get if GTE moved into Denmark. Maybe. I've spent quite a lot of time in St. Pete, Fl. where GTE is pretty dominant, and I've got nothing to complain about. One thing I do miss is the free local calls. Here in Denmark you pay 29 oere, which is around $0.05, a minute for a local call, and it runs up real fast if you're not careful! | Per Gotterup | Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.) | University of Copenhagen, Denmark | Internet: ballerup@freja.diku.dk ------------------------------ Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Subject: Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? Date: 2 Apr 90 17:53:54 JST (Mon) From: Jim Gottlieb In article <5470@accuvax.nwu.edu>: > In addition to all the changeover annoyance, the new system has a >real human-factors botch: no tones are generated at the phone when >dialing. Tones are generated after the call connects, but only for a >fixed, short duration, so any remote device that needs long tones >(like many answering machines) is difficult or impossible to access. >How could Northern Telecom let such a stupid mistake out the door? Northern Telecom isn't the only one guilty. It's one of my main complaints about modern phone systems (my other is that they normally do not generate a CPC [disconnect supervision] signal on analog ports). The Japanese telecom companies are especially guilty of this (the one notable exception being Panasonic's KX products). I have asked them why they do this. They point to the spec that says that touch-tones must only be 100ms minimum duration. Yes, that's fine for dialing into a dial-tone on a clean phone line, but not enough to interrupt an announcement on an answering machine or voice mail system. The fact that such systems are virtually non-existant in Japan would explain their ignorance. I hope that as interactive voice systems become more prevalent here that the PBX and KTS makers will mend their ways. I figure that all it will take is for the engineer of a company to not be able to access some service he wants to call. But that fails to explain why a company like Northern Telecom would do this, except that maybe it has historically been done that way. AT&T does get it right in their systems. Mitel Supersets also work correctly, because they have a real tone-generator in the set. A work-around to this is to set the touch-tone length (usually it is an option on PBXs) to something like one second. The drawback is that dialing an 11-digit number will now take a long time to outdial. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan or or Fax: (011)+81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: Re: Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest! Date: 4 Apr 90 00:52:16 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC In article <5881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > In fact, Telecom Digest didn't get old Databit muxes, but it _did_ get > Databit's oldest customer and later an export salesman for them. The > reply contact was consummated by telephone at 10 AM EST, making for an > approximate 8-hour elapsed time to identify sources for a needed piece > of hardware. > Now honestly, folks, where else can you expect such a result in > today's environment? > Let's hear it now for TELECOM Digest! > P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there? As the person in need, let me also add that the 8-hour turnaround time from my request for sources for obsolete equipment to the identification of the source of same does not include the time factor for the "moderation delay". The moderation delay for my article added a good 2 hours or so to the total turnaround. Where's Pat when you need him? :=> Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.uu.net (202) 408-0841 [Moderator's Note: Thanks once again. This Digest is simply typical of our entire net, I believe, as a source of information, and a way to match people who need help and advice with people who can give it. And at the prices we charge for subscriptions! It would be a bargain at twice the cost! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #228 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29884; 4 Apr 90 9:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22728; 4 Apr 90 2:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29752; 4 Apr 90 1:05 CDT Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 0:30:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #229 BCC: Message-ID: <9004040030.ab04637@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Apr 90 00:30:10 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 229 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Michael A. Patton] Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [John Higdon] Switch Types at Pacific Bell [Guy Tonti] '70s Technology Comes to JR [Jim Gottlieb] Int'l Experiences With AT&T and MCI Calling Cards :-( [Peter J. Dotzauer] Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story? [David M. Watt] Mercury in the UK: A Question [David Leibold] Step By Step Unit Displayed [Carl Moore] A Small Simple Question [Homeless Hacker] Note to Subscribers of CuD [Jim Thomas & Gordon Meyer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 02:48:23 EDT Subject: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro From: "Michael A. Patton" On Thu, 29 Mar 90 John L. Shelton writes: [Forwarding my line to an outside number works for inside callers, but not outside callers.] My PBX service provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of "ground start," but this sounds bogus to me. That's exactly what the problem is. Here for the edification of all is a short intro to the differences between Loop Start and Ground Start trunks as viewed by the user (at a high level, i.e. a telecom manager as opposed to PBX engineer). I promise at the end of this to say why the difference affects your question. First, on availability, since Loop Start is what a normal phone uses, these kinds of "trunks" are available everywhere and every PBX I've seen has this type of connection available (although frequently recommended against) as an option. In most cases, if you don't say otherwise, this is what you'll get. Tariffs may also differ in pricing and other particulars. Now the main difference. Ground Start does, and Loop Start does not, provide supervision and positive interlock on line utilization. The main effects of this difference are seen on Loop Start trunks as "glare" and charges for calls based on a timer rather than actual completion. "Glare" is a term used in the industry for when two systems at opposite ends of a trunk both pick up the trunk and connect new calls to it. In this case, someone who has dialed 9 to get an outside line and someone who has called into the company are connected together without either one realizing it. The mnemonic here is that you have two callers "glaring" at one another for having gotten in the way of their call. Loop Start provides no way to interlock against glare, Ground Start interlocks intrinsically in the protocol for picking up the trunk. The latter of these two problems occurs when the operator of the PBX wishes to charge back to the individual lines for outgoing calls. Since you get no positive indication when the called party answers on a Loop Start line, most systems resort to some time based trick (i.e. calls under 40 secs were probably not real, over 40 secs probably were, so start charging at 40 secs). On the other hand Ground Start trunks can be configured (I don't remember if it's the default) to return positive supervision so acurate billing can be done. The lack of supervision also means that the PBX is solely at the mercy of the local user to know when a call is over. If an outside caller calls you (or you call out), the switch will keep the circuit up until you hang up your phone, it can't tell when the outside party hangs up. This means that among other things --- if you leave your phone off hook rather than hanging up on an inbound call --- you are tying up a CO trunk. In some cases the CO will detect this condition and drop the call on its side, opening the line up to glare or other problems. I have even seen COs that when provoked like this will set the line into an unusable state (which you probably won't notice unless you test all your trunks with a butt set regularly). Now finally, in case you haven't figured it out, the above is the reason you can't forward incoming calls back out without Ground Start trunks. The PBX has no one to watch for final disconnection. It would have connected two trunks together with no supervision from either of them to indicate when it should take the call down. Failing any other consideration, I would always recommend Ground Start trunks over Loop Start trunks for a PBX. But as I said, availability and pricing may be different. The reason I know all this is that I used to work as telecom manager (among other things) at a company that had a Loop Start only PBX which did allow forwarding to outside lines and I had to regularly go through all the trunks into the system to find the ones that were hung and fix them up (disconnection for about 5 mins seemed to do it). I didn't know at the time that this was the problem (we also had glare, but since outgoing calls were not itemizable on that PBX no billing problems). When we got a new PBX, they recommended we switch to Ground Start trunks. After discovering how well they addressed these issues, I'm only sorry I didn't hear about them earlier. Since the product we made was for connection to the switched telephone system, this lesson was quickly adopted and the next version of our product supported Ground Start lines. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX Date: 3 Apr 90 02:44:18 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Dan Margolis writes: > This is probably not bogus. One problem with loop start trunks is > that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect. This is not necessarily the case. Except for misprogrammed digital switches, sufficient loop current interruption is generated by virually all commonly used CO switching equipment on loop start trunks upon disconnect or dial tone reacquisition. 1 and 1A ESS equipment is especially good at this. Furthermore, most PBX switches that allow unattended trunk to trunk communications also provide a "MAX TIME" for connection. The maximum time two trunks can be connected together can be set in programming. In the case of the ITT 3100, you can even set ground start trunks for unlimited time and loop start for some reasonable value, such as 30 minutes. BTW, my Panasonic KX-T1232 allows trunk to trunk transfer and unerringly disconects when the callers hang up. The Panasonic uses only loop start lines. My CO is a 1ESS. > Some PBXs let you override this restriction, but you run the risk of > busying out your trunks. Not with a time-out. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 13:05:22 -0700 From: Guy Tonti Subject: Switch Types at Pacific Bell To provide some information on the Central Office switch types used by Pacific Bell, here is what we had (as of 9/1/89, which may be old for a few sites, but is generally okay). Pacific Bell uses exclusively switches by AT & T and Northern Telecom (we are the only RBOC that does not use Siemens, and many of the others use Stromberg-Carlson and/or Ericson (sp?)). In Northern California, we had the following: 89 1AEs 13 1Es 36 5Es 41 DMS-100s 46 DMS-10s (small switch intended for "suburban" areas) 29 2Bs (small switch intended for "suburban" areas) 10 3Es (smaller switch intended for "remote" communities) 21 Crossbars In Southern California (roughly defined as the Tehachipis and the Tejon Pass), we had the following: 96 1AEs 18 1Es 35 5Es 61 DMS-100s 6 DMS-10s 6 2Bs 3 Crossbars This reflects the fewer smaller, remote communities and the urban sprawl in Southern California. Pacific has been upgrading its crossbars to various electronic switches (depending on the size of the central office), its 1Es to 1AEs (allowing additional call capacity, more "custom calling" features and ISDN) and its 1Es/1AEs more gradually to 5Es and DMS-100s (for the best information on the switches and their functionalities, I suggest reading "Engineering and Operations in the Bell System.") This upgrading will probably be escalated with the recent regulatory changes. Also regarding billing by the LECs. It is strictly a contractual arrangement between the IECs and the individual LECs. i.e., Sprint or MCI may have an RBOC do its billing, while not have another LEC (which may have customers across the street) do it; or vice versa. Guy Tonti gjt@PacBell.COM Disclaimer: Though I am an employee of Pacific Bell, the above information is not supplied as official company material. It is all available and on file from the California Public Utilities Commission. ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: '70s Technology Comes to JR Date: 3 Apr 90 10:40:23 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan One thing that visitors to Japan usually notice is the lack of advanced technology in many aspects of daily life. The lack of computer use has been discussed here before. Most Japanese offices are buried under mountains of paper (no wonder they have to cram all the desks together :-). When I was first here in 1982, I was struck by the fact that telephone answering machines were nowhere to be found. Likewise, most train stations in Japan have employees punching tickets at entrance gates and more employees at the exit checking people's tickets and passes. So I was pleased to read an announcement on the train several months back that JR Higasi-Nihon was planning to install automated gates at all stations in the Yamanote loop (and selected other locations) beginning this spring. Now they have posters in the trains asking people to exchange their old passes for ones with a magnetic backing so they can be used in the new gates. And not to be outdone, the Eidan Subway system in Tokyo has announced (in its most recent issue of [Metro News]) that they too will soon begin to install automated ticket gates (they have had them as a trial only at Ebisu up until now) and hope to complete the project within five years. Five years? I would think that the payback would be rather quick on such a system, but perhaps not in a country where they can't quickly lay people off after installing automation. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan or or Fax: +81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: +81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" Subject: Int'l Experiences With AT&T and MCI Calling Cards :-( Date: 4 Apr 90 01:35:41 GMT Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC In March, when visiting Germany, I thought I was well-equipped for any calls I needed to make, carrying both the AT&T and MCI calling cards. However, it turns out that one is out of luck when relying on these cards: 1. MCI: Before departure, I double-checked with MCI about how to use their card in West Germany. I was assured that I just would have to call 950-1022 to get the MCI dial tone, as one would do within the U.S. Although I had slight doubts that the same number would work within Germany, I took their word for a fact. 950-1022, however, was not a number in use, at least not in the areas I was. After learning about Germany's 0130 service (similar to the U.S. 800 service), I asked about MCI's number there. The 0130 information has never heard of MCI, and they asked me what M. C. I. stands for, and what kind of company it is! 2. AT&T: At least, they had a 0130 number (0130 0010). However, the operator balked when I needed to make a call to Puerto Rico, insisting I cannot make a phone call from a foreign country to another foreign country. After I explained that Puerto Rico is NOT a foreign country, but a U.S. commonwealth, he got more specific, now claiming that calls are restricted to the continental U.S. only. Any comments on these incidents are welcome, especially on the restrictions of the AT&T card. Are there any cards that are truly useful for international travel? I believe the U.S. Sprint FON card is even more restricted in its use. And, could a calling card by the Bundespost be used in the U.S. without restriction? Peter Dotzauer, Numerical Cartography Lab, Dept of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH VOICE (614) 292-1357 FAX (614) 292-6213 DATA (614) 293-0081 BITNET pjd@ohstvmb UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd FIDO 1:226/330 INTERNET pjd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu [128.146.1.5] ------------------------------ From: David M Watt Subject: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story? Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 01:46:01 GMT I read elsewhere on the net that Deutsch Bundespost has recently been split into three parts, and is now competing under market conditions. I understand that modems faster than 1200 baud are illegal (!) in the FRG because of regulations that were promulgated and enforced by D.B. I also heard that many, many people in Germany were disobeying those rules. Could someone provide some background and history about all of this? What does it mean to the German modem punter? Please post responses to the net, since I suspect this is of general interest. Thanks! Dave Watt dmwatt@athena.mit.edu dmwatt%smersh.uucp@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Mercury in the UK: A Question Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 23:28:28 EDT From: woody I have heard about this Mercury service in the UK, which is something like a competing phone company. Originally, I believe they were into public telephone service (like COCOTs or something like that). Are they into long distance, also, in the manner that Sprint or MCI would be in the US? If so, how would calls be dialed through (ie. what is the UK equivalent of 10XXX+ or 950 service, if any?). || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 10:02:19 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Step By Step Unit Displayed I believe there's a SxS unit displayed in Philadelphia on the ground floor of the Franklin Institute. I was there just before last Christmas. ------------------------------ From: Homeless hacker Subject: A Small Simple Question Reply-To: Homeless hacker Organization: California State University, Chico Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 00:06:08 GMT I'm a computer engineering major thinking about my senior project. One of my idea involves a device that will answer the fone. My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices to the phone line. I was under the impression that that changed with the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor. 1) What are the exact rules, regs, etc. re: attaching equipment to the phone line? 2) Where can I find a reliable print source of this info to show him? Please reply via email, I will post a summary to comp.dcom.telecom. Thanx! Reply to atman%csuchico.EDU@RELAY.CS.NET or one of these others: Fidonet : atman via 1:119/666.0 WWIVnet : 1@9651 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Apr 90 22:27 CDT From: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Note to Subscribers of CuD Our thanks again to Pat for sending material to Computer Underground Digest. To date (3 April), three issues have been put out. If anybody has subscribed but not received any, it means mail is not getting through and we missed the return, or, if we received the return, to could not get through to notify you. So, send a note to: TK0JUT2@NIU (bitnet)--that's a zero, not an "oh" or INTERNET:TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu And we'll try to get it straightned out. The inquiries and subscriptions have been high, and we currently are reaching about 135 subscribers with about 50 additional addresses that we cannot reach at the moment (but are working on it). Computer Underground Digest is a forum for debating and sharing information about the ethical, policy, legal, enforcement, and other ramifications of phreaking, hacking, and piracy. Jim Thomas & Gordon Meyer (co-moderators) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #229 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17785; 5 Apr 90 4:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31797; 5 Apr 90 2:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04783; 5 Apr 90 1:24 CDT Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 1:01:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #230 BCC: Message-ID: <9004050101.ab03328@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Apr 90 01:00:12 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 230 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Small Simple Question [Chip Rosenthal] Re: A Small Simple Question [John Higdon] Re: A Small Simple Question [Marvin Sirbu] Re: A Small Simple Question [Edward Greenberg] Re: Enhanced Caller ID Trial [Bob Sherman] Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Steve Friedl] Re: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? [Ian G. Batten] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Ron Winograd] Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Tim Oldham] Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Jamie Hanrahan] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Bill Darden] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question Date: 4 Apr 90 22:52:27 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) Homeless hacker writes: >My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices >to the phone line. I was under the impression that that changed with >the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor. You are correct, but I fear it won't do you much good. The requirements of equipment which may be connected to the public switched network are complex, and are governed by the FCC. FCC regulations part 15 and 68 specify most of these requirements. I assume you can get them from the Government printing office. But it won't do you much good - nobody uses them. There are services out there who make their money by following the FCC regulations, translating them from Legalese into English, and selling you their compilations. Assuming you get over this hurdle, you now have to prove that your equipment meets the regulations. This springs forward yet another industry - labs which perform FCC compliance testing, and put together packets all ready to go to the FCC for approval. This isn't a senior project - it's a career! But fear not. Because of this scenario, there are folks who make devices which connect to the network interface, carry FCC pre-registeration, and your system sits behind it. At my last job, we did one of these things for T1 networks. You can also get them for plain old phone lines - they are called Direct Access Arrangements (DAA). Some of the features you will often find in a DAA are integral 2-to-4 wire converters (which makes it easy to connect up your transmit/receive circuitry) and a ring detection circuit. Therefore, the scope of your project would be a lot more reasonable if you used a DAA to connect to the phone line. Chip Rosenthal chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question Date: 4 Apr 90 02:21:05 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Homeless hacker writes: > 1) What are the exact rules, regs, etc. re: attaching equipment to the > phone line? Simply put, anything connected to the telephone network must be FCC-registered. To become registered, a device (or prototype) must pass a battery of tests as certified by a registered professional electrical engineer. > 2) Where can I find a reliable print source of this info to show him? The tests and all applicable rules are defined in Part 68 of the FCC's rules and regulations. This can be obtained in any US Govt. bookstore and many other places by mail. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:37:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question You can find the rules for hooking customer premises equipment (CPE) to the network in Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations (available in most libraries). Basically, any device type to be connected to the network must be tested by the FCC from which the manufacturer receives a Registration number for that product. You can see it stamped on the back of any telephone. For homebrew users, you can buy a box from many electronics distributors which is essentially an isolator. The box has a registration number, and it provides the isolation of the telephone line from random voltages generated by your homebrew equipment which is what Registration tests for. You can then merrily construct whatever homebrew equipment you want and connect it to the phone line through the Registered device. These devices used to be supplied by the phone company under the name Protective Access Arrangement (PAA). For details on the Regulatory history see FCC Reports (at your local law library): Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate and Foreign MTS and Wats, 56 FCC 2d 593 (1975) (details of registration program), 57 FCC 2d 1216 (1976), 58 FCC 2d 716 (1976) 58 FCC 2d 736 (1976), 59 FCC 2d 83 (1976). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:46 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question From: Homeless hacker >I'm a computer engineering major thinking about my senior project. >One of my idea involves a device that will answer the fone. >My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices >to the phone line. I was under the impression that that changed >with the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor. Your advisor is right. To attach something to the phone system it needs to be type accepted. If you were hacking in your home, you could probably go for it, since nobody will care unless you do damage. Once the school gets into the act, they have to be careful not to bless your work. One thought though, if this is for a school project, there's really no need to attach it to the phone lines. You could attach it to the phone system in your school -- It may be easier to get permission to do this. You could also consider attaching it to a telephone tester, like they have at phone stores. I imagine that this is how pre-type acceptance development work gets done in the business world. ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Enhanced Caller ID Trial Organization: Not much! Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 05:56:24 GMT In <5963@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: >Customers who do not have unlisted numbers still potentially could be >at the mercy of retail companies. When customers call these companies >the retailers would be able to gain access to their names using Caller >ID, and subsequently gain access to their numbers through directory >assistance or telephone books, Bernstein said. Directory assistance or phone books would be the primitive ways of doing it, there is a database produced by the Donnelly Company (they print a lot of the phone directories) that contains over 61 million residential phone numbers in it (I know, as I use it, as do private eyes, mass mailers etc). where you input area code and phone number, and it gives you name,address, length of residence, names of neighbors and much more. There is also the Electronic Yellow Pages databases, with millions of business phone numbers that can be converted to name and address. We were contacted recently by a charitable organization recently wanting to know how much it would cost them to convert the numbers of people calling their 900 number to make a donation (they get every number that calls the 900 service for billing purposes) so that they could follow up with mailings to remind the people to keep making those $25 donations by calling the 900 number which puts a $25 charge on your bill for each call. Just one example of what will get worse with caller ID. This goes on NOW without caller ID, since there are 2 kinds of number identification. The Caller ID kind which you and I can get a reader for, and the automatic one which you cannot block that goes to the operator, 911 centers, and on all LD trunks for billing info if you should use 10xxx, 900 numbers etc.. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation Date: 4 Apr 90 01:19:20 GMT Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386 Steven King writes: > I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything > but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it. No, not at all. Note here that "fax" means Group III, which is all I have substantial experience with. Group III fax has neither error correction nor flow control, so phone lines do definitely make a difference. The data pattern is modified Huffman, and when you expand it you get so many bits across the page. A line hit of even a single bit means that you have basically lost the whole scanline, and there are three things I know of you can do with it. * ignore it. This means that you have shortened your page by a little bit. * issue a blank scan line. This means that your page is the right length, but you have a "hole" in the middle of something. * duplicate the last good line. This is probably the best and most common method of dealing with them. If you look closely at a fax you might see some of these. > I'm sure the reason for this misinformation is that the marketing > droid [of Sprint] doesn't know squat about the technical aspects > of what he's selling. That's no excuse, mind you. "Marketing Droid" is redundant, and Sprint may be full of it, but phone lines definitely make a big difference in fax quality. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ From: Ian G Batten Subject: Re: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham, England. Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 11:16:01 GMT K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: > "If you use the new code when phoning a number in the same area, > the call will still be connected." > This also works for intra-area calls outside London as per a previous > message of mine to the digest. This seem to be further proof that the > same number can be used in any part of the UK to contact the same > phone. No worries about whether you do/do not need the area code. This didn't used to be the case. I recall dialling 021- (the Birmingham code) in front of a local number and getting a recorded message saying not to. But I just tried calling my house from work (021-771 and 021-476) and it connected fine. Given the 771 exchange is not too modern, as my uucp feeds will attest, I guess this reflects a policy change. But the dialing between Birmingham and its satellites is still pretty mystic. One and two digit codes _not_ starting with a zero are the order of the day, and there seem to be n^2 ways to call between n areas. Ian G Batten, BT Fulcrum - igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk - ...!uunet!ukc!fulcrum!igb ------------------------------ From: Nitemare Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Date: 1 Apr 90 06:55:03 GMT >[Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to >room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on >every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611, >and such? On the contrary, the VAST majority of hotels I have been in have had you simply dial the room numer for room to room calls! Nitemare Ron Winograd ron@vpnet.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Apparently this is possible if there is no conflict in room number lengths and other considerations. PT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Oldham Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 18:04:45 GMT In article <5686@accuvax.nwu.edu> scott@hpqtdla.hp.com (Scott Ferguson) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 209, Message 7 of 11 >>Does anyone know why BT don't itemize all calls >>irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can >>provide an answer to this? >If BT listed all the calls under 50p you would receive a enormous bill >for the paper required to print out all the bills. It's clearly a >compromise between information and practicality. This is quite true. For data services that are billed on usage, the customer has a choice of what level of itemizing is required. PSS (Packet SwitchStream), BT's X.25 service, has a choice of the following itemizing levels: all calls all calls over 75p international calls only international calls over 75p only inland calls only inland calls over 75p You can also be billed monthly or quarterly for this service. There is a minimum charge of 5 pounds sterling for up to 10 sheets of printout, 30 lines per sheet. Extra sheets over 10 are 50p each. Clearly BT could, in theory, offer all customers such a service, but the costs would have to be passed on to the customer in some way. It isn't so much the paper, but the transfer of all the information to the billing centres and the computer billing operations time required to print and collate the vast quantities of information involved. Losing the calls under 50p from the bill isn't too significant. Personally, I'd prefer to receive itemized bills on which any unexpected high cost calls can be easily discerned. Incidentally, the 50p limit is actually 10 units. I work for BT, but am not involved in the operations or management of the UK or International network. I do not speak officially for BT. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo ------------------------------ From: jeh@simpact.com Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone Date: 4 Apr 90 13:01:58 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <5724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: > In response to the Moderator's comment: > I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical > switching in the phone, Don't bet on it. > [Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the > experts? PT] Yesterday it happened to me while I was ON the phone in question. (Talking via the phone, silly, not sitting on it!) I guess our PBX (Harris) malfunctioned, and ring voltage was briefly applied where it shouldn't have been. The chirp-style ringer in my phone chirped, and another phone on the same line chirped also. The phone I was talking on, a Panasonic KX-T2355, has an REN of 1.0B, the other one, 0.2B. Oh, and the phone DID survive the experience. (I've heard so many good things about Panasonic KXT-series phones here, I wonder if they're the "2500 sets of the 90's"?) The worst of it was what it did to the earpiece, and in turn what the earpiece did to my ear. 20Hz at, um, how many dB? I could literally feel my eardrum flapping in the breeze. Not fun. So, anyway, yes, it can happen, with at least some combinations of ring- voltage-suppliers and phones. Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh ------------------------------ From: "Bill Darden" Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Date: 4 Apr 90 22:53:37 GMT Reply-To: Bill Darden Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA Loop start trunks are easier to test, but more difficult to busy out. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #230 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19585; 5 Apr 90 5:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04083; 5 Apr 90 3:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31797; 5 Apr 90 2:30 CDT Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 1:55:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #231 BCC: Message-ID: <9004050155.ab23605@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Apr 90 01:55:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 231 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Overhearing Conversations [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: Master Clocks Around the World [David Leibold] Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Robert Gutierrez] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [George Horwath] Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [David E. A. Wilson] Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? [Peter J. Dotzauer] Why 911 Should Work From Outside Area Codes [CJS@cwru.cwru.edu] Cellular Billing [David Tamkin] Re: The Card [David Tamkin] 950 Number For ITT [Steve Elias] Fax/Phone/Ansmach Recommendations [Ron Watkins] Telcos Entry Into Cable [Ted Carlin] Where Did the Kids BBS Near Chicago Go? [Paul S. R. Chisholm] Correction Re: Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives [Yoram Eisenstadter] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brandon S. Allbery" Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" Organization: Telotech, Inc. Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 18:21:52 GMT As quoted from <5855@accuvax.nwu.edu> by yk4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Yong Su Kim): | The phone company we use here is AT&T. I was wondering if such crossed | lines are common. Maybe someone out there knows more about such | problems. | [Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been | crosstalk. Wires get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes And maybe not. A few weeks ago, we were dialing out from Telotech on our modem line; we heard someone else's conversation during the whole thing, loud enough to make the modem connection fail. This is a relatively new area, so the phone wires around here aren't likely to have insulation problems. I don't think the LD provider has anything to do with it; it was a local call, if I recall correctly. -=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=- ** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} ** ------------------------------ From: "Brandon S. Allbery" Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" Organization: Telotech, Inc. Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 18:03:42 GMT As quoted from <5809@accuvax.nwu.edu> by amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew Boardman): | In article <5779@accuvax.nwu.edu> mtv@milton.u.washington.edu wrote: | >You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we carry, with | >an actual card. | Well now, that's what *I* thought. Nevertheless, I've got a shiny new | FONCARD in my wallet that worked 45 seconds after I got it! I also saw folks pocketing FONcards as they walked away from the GTE stand. No, I don't think I'm confusing those with demo cards. -=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=- ** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} ** ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:39:54 EDT From: woody The National Research Council in Canada operates a time-of-day clock at + 1 613 745 1576 (should still be the case). They run the CHU time radio service on various (though rather uneven) frequencies on shortwave as well. || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV Date: 5 Apr 90 04:32:26 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC plains!overby@uunet.uu.net (Glen Overby) writes in V.10, Iss 226, Msg 8 of 11 > In article <5158@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert Gutierrez arc.nasa.gov writes: > >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 guy from XPRESS told me that their "feed" was over CNN and WTBS I should have clarified myself. CNN and WTBS are encoded using the VC-II scrambling system. On a VC-II scrambled channel, a 9600 baud data carrier can also 'ride' on the 'scrambled' portion of the channel (actually, multiplexed into the audio PCM portion of the signal). > and did not require any additional hardware at the cable company end > (the person who responded to my net query said the cable company > decodes the signal from CNN or WTBS)..... On a commercial VC-II, an FSK demod/modulator is needed, unless the cable company gets a special model which includes such a beast inside. For consumers, you can buy a Videochiper Data Receiver, and with a subscription to CNN/WTBS, you'll get the basic X-PRESS service for free (at least as of last year). Remember, you must already have a satellite dish and a IRD (Integrated Receiver/Descrambler) or a receiver with an external Videocipher descrambler. > Their software would run on any > PC with a IBM compatable serial port. I didn't ask if it was ASCII so > I could convert it to something inews could eat, allowing me to throw > their software away and use rn. Was somewhat ASCII when I monitored the RS-232 out of the demod box. No LF/CR's though. > Isn't Brad Templeton's ClariNet just getting the same kind of feeds > from UPI, et al. and reselling them over News rather than cable? Yep. I keep forgetting to write to him to see if he gets the same 'broadcast' versions or 'full-text' versions sent to the newspapers. The only people I've ever seen with access to full-text versions is either "Newsnet", which is a very good, and *very expensive* commercial service (they also have just about every business and communcations magazine articles, usually before the printing date), or by searching for the SCPC carriers on the satellites (which, of course, you're not *supposed* to do). Robert Gutierrez/NSI Network Operations/NASA Ames Research Center. ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Date: 4 Apr 90 16:59:36 GMT Reply-To: motcid!horwath@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I'm no expert, but a few additional comments: 1) If a PBX has a mix of trunk types (loop & ground) it might be smart enough to check that whenever two trunks are connected together, at least one will provide disconnect supervision and allow the connection. It might also be possible to defeat this check. All depends on the maker. 2) Depending on how bad glare is/ground start trunk availability/costs/etc., loop start trunks can be marked as one-way incoming or one-way outgoing but now more trunks are needed. This feature also depends on the brand of PBX. George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!horwath Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) Date: 4 Apr 90 02:52:30 GMT Organization: Dept of Computing Science, University of Wollongong, Australia zweig@cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig) writes: >misunderstanding of the phrase "this device allows you to call up and >listen through the handset mike without the handset being picked up" >leads people to believe there is a device I can use on _my_ end to >call an untampered phoneset and listen through the handset. >The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection >between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone. Just >shows to go ya. A British program broadcast in Australia stated that this is done by tapping the wires leading into the property and applying a high frequency AC signal to the line - at this frequency the switch hook looks like a capacitor which conducts the AC which is then modulated when it passes through the microphone. David Wilson [Moderator's Note: Larry Lippman has written us again! Some of you who have been readers for at least a few months will remember his interesting articles. He has submitted a lengthy article on Infinity Transmitters and it will be the subject of a special issue this weekend. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" Subject: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? Date: 3 Apr 90 20:41:48 GMT Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC Does anyone have a list of toll-free services for foreign countries, such as the 800 service in North America and the 0130 service in Germany? Peter Dotzauer, Numerical Cartography Lab, Dept of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH VOICE (614) 292-1357 FAX (614) 292-6213 DATA (614) 293-0081 BITNET pjd@ohstvmb UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd FIDO 1:226/330 INTERNET pjd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu [128.146.1.5] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 22:01 EST From: CJS@cwru.cwru.edu Subject: Why 911 Should Work From Outside Area Codes In a previous news message someone mentioned emergency services being available only via 911. There is a problem with that. What if someone needs to reach an emergency responce activity from outside the area served. Why you might ask, would someone need to do that? Well, several years ago my girlfriend called me (in Ohio) from New York to tell me she was committing suicide. She had taken sleeping pills, plenty of alcohol and slit both her thighs with a knife. She wanted to talk with me on the phone as she died. Ever try to reach 911 in a different area code? I got NY information to give me the Police non-emergency number; they transferred me to 911. NY's finest actually responded very quickly; I called her back and we talked (for three minutes) until the Police arrived. p.s. She's now married to a boy from Bellcore. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Cellular Billing Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 3:24:33 CDT Recently the moderator reported that both cellular providers in the Chicago area, Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One, don't charge for busy or unanswered calls but backdate the airtime charges on completed calls to when the caller pressed "send". That is true only of Ameritech Mobile; Cellular One does not charge for connection or ringing time. I'm not sure when airtime charges begin on incoming calls. 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: David Tamkin Subject: Re: The Card Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 3:24:33 CDT On another subject, some Digest readers have written that they were told that they were already approved for the AT&T Universal Card as soon as they phoned, before they were even asked for their income. I asked a Universal Card rep about that; she said that if your calling number and your name identify you as an established AT&T Long Distance customer, then they already had obtained your credit history and have both that report and your payment record with AT&T Long Distance since then on file. Many AT&T Long Distance customers were pre-approved for Universal Cards; I'm not sure whether AT&T intended to mail out solicitations to those people after a while or not, but apparently some of you have been phoning in on your own and finding out that you are among the pre-approved. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: 950 Number For ITT Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 08:50:50 -0400 From: Steve Elias A previous posting mentioned ITT and their continued use of 950 numbers. 950-0ITT does not work from the Boston area, so the "950 advantage" doesn't cut it around here. I thought that *all* LD carriers were phasing out 950 as soon as they could ??? ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com. !! MAIL TO eli@spdcc.com ONLY !! ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax 508 671 7447 ------------------------------ From: Ron Watkins Subject: Fax/Phone/Ansmach Recommendations Wanted Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 09:43:37 EDT I'm interested in getting a set up fax/telephone/answering machine and would like to get recommendations. Fax should be inexpensive, general purpose; the telephone and answering machine should be one with a great sound quality. Thus when someone gets my answering machine, it should be very clear as if a real human answered the phone. Wish List: 1. The phone has a "call forwarding" feature so that if needed, and if nynex doesn't support it (I'm not sure yet), I can forward my phone to some other specified number. 2. The answering machine can call me/page me to let me know I have a message. 3. I can manipulate the answering machine remotely (get messages, change messages, give the answering machine a new paging number etc. Thank you for the recommendations and help. rwatkins@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Ted Carlin Subject: Telcos Entry Into Cable Date: 4 Apr 90 14:36:34 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I am searching for information on telcos and their entry into the cable television market. Any information about the future of telcos entering the cable world, either technical, regulatory, or societal, would be of great help. I am seeking position papers from all sides of the issue in an effort to possibly forecast the role of telcos as common carriers and/or content owners in the cable market. I would be very interested in sources of information as well as comments on this topic. Ted Carlin Bowling Green State University carlin@barney.bgsu.edu ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Where Did the Kids BBS Near Chicago Go? Date: 4 Apr 90 14:56:52 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories [This was article <619@enprt.Wichita.NCR.COM>, posted in comp.sys.ibm.pc by gharring@enprt.Wichita.NCR.COM (Gary Harrington). I include it here because of the possible connection LoD BBS crackdown. --Paul] Does anyone know where the Kids BBS near Chicago went? It used to be at (312) 383-6335. Last time I called, I got a recording saying that the area code had changed, and when I called with the new area code, I got a recording saying the number had been disconnected. Has it closed down, or moved to another number? Gary.Harrington@Wichita.NCR.COM Wichita, KS [Moderator's Note: I do not think there was any 'LoD connection' here. The sysop probably burned out and turned it off. BBS' have a short life and a high turnover rate here. BBS' come, and BBS' go, but the bull (as in bull board system) goes on forever. Boards close down, and others take their place overnight. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 13:36:06 EDT From: Yoram Eisenstadter Subject: Re: Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article <5918@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 225, Message 8 of 8 >A new program running at Princeton University now allows non-Internet >sites to access ftp'able files from anywhere... >1) Send a letter to: > (From Bitnet sites): bitftp@nucc.bitnet ^^^^ > (From Fido/UUCP sites): bitftp@nucc.princeton.edu ^^^^ I'm pretty sure that "nucc" should be "pucc" (for Princeton University Computer Center). Also, my local internet nameserver doesn't know of a "nucc.princeton.edu". Are you sure you got this right? [Moderator's Note: My thanks to the several others who pointed this out. My face is permanently red. The correct address is FTPBIT at PUCC. Sorry about that! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #231 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13682; 6 Apr 90 3:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09214; 6 Apr 90 1:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00735; 6 Apr 90 0:13 CDT Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 0:04:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #232 BCC: Message-ID: <9004060004.ab28401@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Apr 90 00:03:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 232 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Larry Lippman] Telephone Ground Question [George Horwath] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Dave Levenson] Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision) [Mike Olson] Looking For Introductory Books on Telephony [Mark Harrison] Questions About Error in CO [Steve Howard] Databit Alumni (was Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest!) [Gil Kloepfer Jr.] Need Info on Getting Access to NPA/NXX Data Bases [Randy Peterson] Documentation Needed For ISOETEC EZ-1 Re: "Flat rate" Long Distance Services [Douglas Mason] Face Red? You Bet! [Thomas Lapp] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground Date: 5 Apr 90 23:43:43 EST (Thu) From: Larry Lippman In article <5750@accuvax.nwu.edu> pixar!bp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Perens) writes: > Some locations have armored pay phones connected to wimpy external > bells. One can simply unscrew the cover on the external bell, and > complete the connection there (Of course I've got lots of dimes now, > but I was a kid once). Of course, now that one can put an arbitrarily > sophisticated program in the C.O., it shouldn't be to hard to track > down abusers, but who wants to round up a bunch of kids? Most coin stations today are DTF (Dial Tone First) and no longer resemble a ground-start line. A DTF coin line behaves similar to that of a loop-start line (it is actually more complex than that, but this will suffice for the purpose of this discussion); i.e., a ground on a DTF coin line will not facilitate any fraud. On pre-pay coin lines, a ground was required on the ring side of the line to "start" the line. However, the "fraud problem" involving an external ground to the line (pin through transmitter, pin through handset cord, pin through exposed station wire, etc.) was solved MANY years ago. In the older multi-slot coin stations a contact was added which required at least one coin to be present in order to open a shunt contact across the dial pulse contacts (or DTMF dial); therefore, the best fraud that one could commit was deposit a nickel to make a dime call. Not very worthwhile. In single-slot pre-pay coin stations, the totalizer provided a shunt contact across the rotary or DTMF dial which was not removed until the full initial rate was deposited. No money, no dial. End of *this* :-) fraud problem. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 || 716/773-1700 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 || 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Telephone Ground Question Date: 4 Apr 90 17:18:20 GMT Reply-To: motcid!horwath@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I recently had to do some plumbing repairs at home and had to move the telephone ground wire clamp. The telephone line in the house is the original (30+ years old - no "network interface" box). The ground wire has a plastic tag that says something like "If this wire is loose or must be moved, notify the telephone company." I was wondering, is this considered part of the inside wiring (which I own) or is it part of the telco outside plant? And yes, I did firmly reattach it to the pipe when I was done