Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12443; 1 May 90 0:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32118; 30 Apr 90 23:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17960; 30 Apr 90 22:12 CDT Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 21:56:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #301 BCC: Message-ID: <9004302156.ab05820@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Apr 90 21:55:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 301 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Card [Steven Gutfreund] Re: The Card [Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer] Re: The Card [Roy Smith] Re: Sources for TDD Modems [Peter Weiss] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: Local Telco Boneheadisms / Digital DID [Steve Elias] Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Eduardo Krell] Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [John Higdon] Caller ID and Privacy Sources Needed [Bruce Klopfenstein] Selective Call Waiting [Paul Wilczynski] Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Tom Perrine] SprintMail & the Internet [Ken Jongsma] DTMF Hi-Group Mungs Some Losing PBXs [John R. Covert] 'cu' Question [Mark Earle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Re: The Card Date: 30 Apr 90 20:09:09 GMT Reply-To: Steven Gutfreund I started calling the first day, and got through on the third day. Ten days later I got the application which gave me a choice of Visa and Mastercard; I chose Visa. As of yet (29-Apr-90) I have not yet received it. But here is the twist: April is my renewal month for my FirstCard Visa. It has a $20 annual fee. (FirstCard is a subsidary of the First National Bank of Chicago). The main reason why I chose ATT was so I could cancel the FirstCard. So I give a call and tell them to cancel it. I got some sort of confused story from the FirstCard operator, but I verified at the end of my call that my card was going to be cancelled. Last Friday I get a letter from FirstCard congratulating me on retaining my FirstCard. With the letter was enclosed a $20 voucher. In letter they said that they were giving me this voucher as a courtesy and that I could use it to pay the annual fee or apply it against any balance. Looks like the AT&T offer is putting pressure on the other card providers. Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund [Moderator's Note: Not only is the AT&T offer putting pressure on the other bank cards, but the major banks across the United States are retaliating against AT&T by taking their phone business away and giving it to MCI or Sprint. One recent example was Citibank, which pulled a multi-million dollar long distance deal from AT&T and gave it to MCI, noting specifically when doing so that they were angry with the new competition. PT] ------------------------------ From: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer Subject: Re: The Card Date: 30 Apr 90 21:33:40 GMT Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California Brief message on the AT&T Universal Card: I called their 800 number and asked for an application for a Visa *or* a MasterCard to be mailed to me. About a week later I received an envelope with two applications in it, one with a Visa picture on it and a box to check if I want a MasterCard instead, and the other with a MasterCard picture on it and a box to check if I want a Visa instead. In summary, two different applications do exist, but either will allow you to request either a Visa or a MasterCard. As a public service for any fellow students, I asked the AT&T person for a student card application. He informed me that none existed, but that I should be sure to enclose proof of being a student (i.e. photocopy of student ID card), and that the minimum income standard ("I'm not supposed to be telling you this . . .") for students is $3,000. Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer University of Southern California eickmeye@alcor.usc.edu Los Angeles, California ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 17:18:49 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: The Card My wife reports that her brand-spanking-new AT&T Gold Visa card was rejected on her first attempt to use it! [Moderator's Note: *Please* send more details on this! How was that explained-away by AT&T, or did they bother? Is the card working now? PT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 30 Apr 1990 14:42:38 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: Sources for TDD Modems In article <7035@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jst@cca.ucsf.edu (Joe Stong) says: >Who manufactures TDD modems? Are there any which will do TDD AND >ordinary modem standard calling (103,212) with maybe even Hayes >compatible dialing commands? Though this does not answer your question, it seems like a good time to re-post some useful info on TDD from the Telecom-archives FTPable from LCS.MIT.EDU. This short file is called deaf.communicate.on.tdd and the file name is case sensitive. I've included it here since it shouldn't waste too much bandwidth - --------------------clip here---------------------- Volume 10, Issue 102 of the Digest, dated 2/14/90 is devoted mostly to a discussion of TDD machines and services. Most of the information in this issue was provided by Curtis Reid, himself a deaf person. Also see issues 98 through 101 for a few other articles on TDD's. Then, see issue 123 for a further followup, and a dissent on the quality of AT&T's service to deaf persons via 800-855-1155. P. Townson TELECOM Moderator 2-23-90 ---------------------clip here----------------- Peter M. Weiss 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) University Park, PA USA 16802 Disclaimer -* +* applies herein [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the plug for the Archives. And of course everyone by now knows the Telecom Archives can be obtained via mail server (to bitftp@pucc.bitnet) PT] ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Date: 29 Apr 90 17:32:02 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In article <6986@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: > If the hotels get honest with their phone charges - real >costs, same price as telco etc - looks to me like they can expect a >200% drop in revenue. > Hoping that in the future honesty will return to hotel phone >bills. As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges. Has any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the charges when you ask? I would be very surprised if this were so; therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest? In fact, I would be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed explanation of rates and charging methods available. While we are on the subject, I would like to mention one of the rationales (I do not necessarily agree with it) for charging a local call at a rate higher than a pay phone call -- pay phones don't answer incoming calls and take messages for you when you are not in your room. Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt; however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much, if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your phone calls?? In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a profit. This is usually break-even at best. ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Re: Local Telco Boneheadisms / Digital DID Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 08:50:39 -0400 From: Steve Elias I'm a bit confused by the recent responses to my query about Digital DID. I did not order T1 service from the phone company. Actually, I didn't order anything: the telecom group here at Bull ordered one DID trunk, Wink Start, three digits -- exactly what I requested. This service is not being connected to a PBX, it is being connected to a computerfax board. Bull does actually have direct T1 service into their PBX, but this should have nothing to do with DID trunk I've been trying to get for the last three months. An engineering foreman (woman) is supposed to call me today to get this whole thing straightened out. If the two readers who alleged that there is something called Digital DID could respond further, I would appreciate it. What digital protocol is used on such trunks? If it's T1, then it is not a DID line, it's a T1 line! ??? Thanks for any additional replies... ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 10:58:04 EDT Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product When someone calls me, he/she knows my number. Don't I have a right to know their number before I answer the phone? If Caller ID is offered with a blocking feature so that your number doesn't go out, then I want a feature to know when someone who's number is blocked from Caller ID is calling me so that I have a choice of answering or not. The Big Brother concerns should be addressed with proper laws (as in AIDS hotlines can't have Caller Id), not by banning the service and thus keeping all of us who are good guys from using it. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 30 Apr 90 11:22:28 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) writes: [The usual verbage about how Caller ID is "unnecessary".] I will spare you the infinitely long list of technological offerings in the marketplace that were originally pronounced as "unnecessary" that are now considered to be essential. (The telephone is one.) From this point forward could we avoid this short-sighted and Luddite-style view of the world? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Caller ID and Privacy Sources Needed Date: 30 Apr 90 14:23:26 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I am working on a project concerning the issues involved with caller ID services and privacy. I believe this has been an issue on the east coast. I am now doing some background research on the area (which is fairly new to me), and would appreciate some help on sources (including trade and business press articles as well as possible law journal articles). Thanks for any help. Please post or respond by email. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 16:33 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Selective Call Waiting I just had an interesting conversation with a business office person in an office that handles the Brockton, MA area. I asked about the availability of pressing a * sequence to temporarily disable call waiting for the period of one call. "It's not available in Randolph". When might it be available? "Never". Why not? "It's available in towns with older switches" (that's not a mistype) "but not in towns with newer switches". Hmmm ... isn't that a little strange? "No - it's not in our future plans." Why not? "Too many people have missed important calls by disabling call waiting". Can you tell me the kind of switch handles Randolph? "No, we don't give out that kind of information - why do you want to know?" Paul [Moderator's Note: You should have immediatly asked this person for their name, then asked for the Business Office Manager. The person who 'assisted' you (I use the term very loosely) is badly in need of training. PT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: 30 Apr 90 22:08:01 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number. How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software (probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world. If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country, I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for international dialing access", the country code (which you just have to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct? The reason I am asking is in support of a small project that wants to do "dial-SMTP" for email, so that addresses of the form username@phone-number.DIAL can be used to deliver e-mail in the same manner that FAX is used now. I guess I am looking for an international phone number format that can be written into a spec for addresses in "dial-SMTP". 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 ------------------------------ Subject: SprintMail & the Internet Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:51:52 EDT From: Ken Jongsma A single sentence in an unrelated article in this week's issue of [Communications Week] mentions that SprintMail (formerly known as GTE Telemail) is now providing a connection with the Internet. No details were given on the addressing procedure from either end. Ken Jongsma ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 05:47:29 PDT From: "John R. Covert 30-Apr-1990 0834" Subject: DTMF Hi-Group Mungs Some Losing PBXs We have seen two messages (in #294 an #298) from Erik Naggum telling us that we should not send the DTMF Hi-Group tones to COs or PBXs: >You can disrupt service for other telephone users in strange ways. >You can, for instance, disable echo suppression filters or >cause the routing tables to be, uh, disturbed. Just Don't Do it. If you are served by a CO or PBX made by AT&T (or probably by any other North American manufacturer), you need not worry. There is a cultural difference here: our manufacturers expect customer provided equipment to be connected and will not do anything strange based on signals coming from a CO subscriber line or a PBX station. Any manufacturer who allows modifications to the routing tables or to other parameters of the switch merely by sending Hi-Group tones from a station is selling losing equipment, IMHO. Commands of this sort should always be password-protected. I hope that what Erik has discovered is merely a poor choice of password (such as ABCD, just as bad a choice as 1234), and that the local switch can simply be given a new password that is less likely to be accidentally or deliberately dialled. /john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 08:03:39 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: 'cu' Question Patrick, a dumb question --- and y'all are about the only *.nix guys I correspond with. I use cu -lttya2 dir to get to a modem on a 386 w/sco xenix. Just use ATDT to issue commands. Is there a standard way to route the incoming text to a file for later review, using some variant of piping or something? So far if so I've not looked in the correct spot in the cubic feet of manuals! Thanks! | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #301 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23064; 1 May 90 7:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08644; 1 May 90 4:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04586; 1 May 90 3:18 CDT Date: Tue, 1 May 90 2:22:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #302 BCC: Message-ID: <9005010222.ab13226@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 May 90 02:21:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 302 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [TELECOM Moderator] Personally Reprogramming Cellular Phones [Bill Nickless] Line Status Indicator Lamp [Stephen Fleming] New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Henry Troup] Re: Selective Call Waiting [John Higdon] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 22:19:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes I think I have a love/hate relationship with Ameritech Mobile. About the time I declare they are the sleaziest people in the industry, they do something to restore my goodwill. Consider: o They eliminated their 'ten cent plan', which cost $10 per month and allowed off-peak calls at ten cents per minute (sicty-five cents in peak time.) ** BOO, HISS ** o They grandfathered the plan to existing customers who had the service, however, incuding yours truly, but raised the rate to $19.95 per month. o Under the grandfathered plan, although the recurring charge is now $19.95 per month, they reduced the off-peak rates slightly. They now charge ten cents *for the first three minutes*, and ten cents thereafter; meaning if I am willing to talk to you for three minutes, hang up and dial over again as a fresh call, I can talk to you for six minutes for only twenty cents. That is a very inexpensive rate. o They also eliminated all call-forwarding fees on calls forwarded from the cell number to elsewhere in the local area. Previously, they had been charging about between five and fifteen cents per call transferred, based on what Illinois Bell was charging them for a local area call. Now they give those away free, for just the two dollars per month otherwise charged for 'transfer on busy/no answer'. Since I leave my cell phone forwarded all the time to my Centel Voicemail box, this is a nice savings for me. o Although they are now getting $9.95 per month more on basic service than they were in the past, unlike Cellular One, they do not charge separately for 'transfer on busy' and 'transfer on no answer' at $2.00 each. Neither do they, like Cellular One, charge airtime for calls being forwarded (to another landline number) or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call-waiting. Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or accept a call waiting. You cannot convince them that only one over-the-air channel is being used and that only one actual radio transmission is going on. The third caller in either direction is handled from their switch -- not from your cell phone or the tower!! So it seems I get ripped one way with Ameritech, and another way with Cellular One ... thus my pleasure at receiving the message which follows from someone who travels out of town a lot, reprograms his own phone with the cell carrier's blessings, and saves BIG $$ each time he does it. Read on .... Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 18:11:02 CDT Subject: Personally Reprogramming Cellular Phones From: Bill Nickless In regards to the Moderator's question about reprogramming your own cellular phone when moving between cities to avoid roaming charges: I currently reside in or near Chicago. Recently I purchased a Nokia Mobira "handportable" cellular phone. As I mentioned earlier in this forum, I learned from the dealer the "secret code" for entering programming mode, as he signed me up with Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. Every weekend I return to a little town in southwest Michigan called Berrien Springs. (Girlfriend lives there, etc.) I take my cellular phone with me. This last weekend I received a bill from Ameritech, and of $80 in charges, $35 were for roaming in Michigan. And that $35 was for approximately 10 calls, none more than 2 minutes. Ameritech is the wireline carrier in Chicago, I believe. The wireline carrier in southwest Michigan is Century Cellunet. Century Cellunet concentrates their coverage on the I-94 corridor through Berrien County, resulting in poor coverage for Berrien Springs, and much of the rest of Berrien County. So that $35 was for substandard quality service! Last week I found myself in Berrien County on Wednesday instead of Friday, due to some equipment failure where I work. I called Cellular One, the non-wireline carrier in Berrien County. They liked the idea of having a new subscriber, but explained that the person who usually reprogrammed phones was out of the office that day. I explained that I would be using their service only when in Berrien County, and that when I returned to Chicago during the week I would reprogram my phone back to Chicago service. They agreed to my plan, and invited me to their office. After filling out the requisite forms, they assigned me a phone number. I put the phone into programming mode. I had written down the settings for Ameritech in Chicago, and they pointed out the differences (paging channel number, system ID, group number, NAM) between their system and Ameritech's. I reprogrammed my phone, they read the ESN from their switch right there in the office, and I walked out of the office with full cellular service in Berrien County, including a new number. One of their customer service reps said that "it's good you know how [to reprogram your own cellular phone]. You'll save quite a bit of money that way." They charged me $25 for service activation, but not the $20 reprogramming fee. Their service cost is quite reasonable: $7.50/month, .35/minute peak, and .15/minute off-peak. Peak times are 8-8, Monday-Friday except holidays. I use the $2/month forwarding option to forward my cellular number to my home when I'm there, or office at school, or Grandmother's house for lunch, or whatever. Cellular One has excellent coverage all over Berrien County. So now, when I travel I-94 between Berrien County and Chicago, I stop at the rest areas near the Michigan/Indiana border, and reprogram the phone. It takes all of 30 seconds to do, my service isn't interrupted, and I don't pay those incredible roaming charges. To avoid missing calls, I could forward the Chicago cellular number to the Berrien County number just before I reprogram the phone. My experience with multiple cellular services has been quite favorable. I'd like to hear about other people's experiences, and maybe the Digest would as well. Bill Nickless nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov or uunet!sharkey!aucis!bnick [Moderator's Note: Yes, please, more stories would be welcome. I think it is time to begin cutting dealers and their exhorbinant fees out of the picture, as well as cellular carriers who won't work on a reasonable basis with their customers. PT] ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@uunet.uu.net Subject: Line Status Indicator Lamp Date: Mon, 30-Apr-90 06:09:43 PDT Some time ago, there was a flurry of questions and answers about a gadget to light a lamp when another extension was off-hook. I didn't follow the discussion, not needing such a gadget myself, but I thought the following advertisement might be of interest: LINE STATUS INDICATOR (Line Powered) o Know at a glance if a line is busy o Know at a glance if your fax or modem is in use o Ideal for workstations or part line o Ready to use in minutes o Available in 2500 faceplate o Made in USA; lifetime guarantee Crest Industries, Inc. 201 Frontage Road North Suite B Pacific, Washington 98047 (800) 452-7378 (Network World, 23 April 1990, page 50) The ad shows two versions ... one is a box about the size of a pack of cigarettes with two modular jacks on the back. The other is a lamp built into the faceplate of a standard 2500 set with a couple of spade lugs coming off it. No mention of price. Disclaimer: I've never heard of these people, I don't have any use for the device, and the only thing I can say for sure is that they have enough money for a small (1/6 page) ad in the back of -Network World-. Caveat emptor. | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | CI$: 76354,3176 AOL: SFleming | | Northern Telecom | BIX: srfleming X.500: ??? | | Eastern Region / Federal Ntwks +-------------------------------------| | McLean, Virginia 22102-4203 | Opinions expressed do not | | (703) 847-8186 | represent Northern Telecom. | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 1:58:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards Did anyone else get a new Telecom*USA Calling Card in the mail this past week besides myself? You dial the 800 number, enter the seven digit authorization code on the face of the card, and proceed. They give you free of charge a ten number personal speed dial directory tied into your account. To call a number on your list, you dial *91 through *99. To program it, dial *90. In addition, *1 gets you their version of 900/976 stuff, at 39 cents a minute. *2 gets conference calling, *3 gets voicemail, which is tied into an 800 number for incoming calls to your box; *4 is used for store and forward. It seems like a pretty nice little card. They have a thirty cent surcharge on calls. From the looks of the mailing, these things went out in bulk over the past couple weeks to whoever is (a) defaulted to Telecom*USA or (b) has 800 number through them, as I do. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416? Date: 30 Apr 90 13:56:51 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. The 'Bell News' a Bell internal newsletter, said that this change affected 152 Bell switches (can't find it for the break down of types). Only about half of these were digital - the others were 1ESS, #5 crossbar, and some really odd ones. A DMS or 5ESS can play tricks based on timing - but not many of the other switches. Then there are the vast number of different PBXes... Dial plan changes will make 1 + NPA + 7 digits universal for all of North America soon, anyway! Henry Troup BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 or HWT@BNR.CA ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Selective Call Waiting Date: 30 Apr 90 23:24:08 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> writes: > I asked about the availability of pressing a * sequence to temporarily > disable call waiting for the period of one call. "It's not available > in Randolph". When might it be available? "Never". Why not? "It's > available in towns with older switches" (that's not a mistype) "but > not in towns with newer switches". This could be true, but if so indicates that your telco is a little backward. Cancel Call Waiting (CCW) was first made available in the 1AESS (unfortunately the 1ESS doesn't have the room in its generic for this feature). Later, the generics for the DMS and 5ESS switches were updated to provide CCW. What is probably the case is that they offer it in the 1AESS but haven't updated the generics in their digital switches yet. > Can you tell me the kind of switch handles Randolph? "No, we don't > give out that kind of information - why do you want to know?" This is essential information. Many types of CPE need to be set up based upon the type of serving CO. I agree with Patrick; ask to speak with a supervisor. FYI, anyone with any knowledge and a good ear can identify most popular types of CO switches. Keeping that information "secret" went out with the Bell System. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Date: 30 Apr 90 23:13:27 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt; > however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much, > if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack > up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your > phone calls?? In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial > statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a > profit. This is usually break-even at best. So how, pray tell, does an operation such as Motel 6 manage to provide clean, reasonable rooms, free local calls, no surcharge on long distance calls, for such low rates? As the administrator for several large business PBXs, I know what it costs to man and maintain the phones. It isn't that much. At large hotels (where the room prices are certainly high enough to cover things like phones) there are "operators" who put incoming calls through to the restaurants, reservations desk, shops, general hotel services, as well as to the rooms. Outgoing calls from the rooms are handled AUTOMATICALLY -- personel cost: $0. Phone system maintenance is part of hotel cost of doing business (or at least it has been so historically before the bean counters found a new revenue scam). At small operations, the person at the desk usually answers the phone. Cost of switchboard attendance: $0. And again, outgoing calls are handled automatically (or by the AOS). Folks, this hotel phone ripoff charges thing is relatively new. Somehow the hotels and motels managed to survive in the past without pulling this garbage. Oh, they do it to keep the general room rates low? That's a laugh! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: My only disagreement with John's article is his saying the hotel phone ripoff is relatively new. Years ago, when the hotels were still running manual cord boards, the operators were (to be charitable) very casual about timing the calls, checking to see if the called number answered or not, and billing them correctly. I agree with the original author: the switchboard is a loser in any hotel, not a money maker, but this does not mean they couldn't take a little better care of how they treat the guests who make calls. What has happened is hotels are trying to make the switchboard into a profitable thing for the hotel. A better way to do it would be by careful billing, good operator service and reasonable pricing, to encourage more people to make calls from their rooms, not fewer. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #302 ****************************** ISSUE 303 - 304 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 303 WILL FOLLOW 304.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14608; 2 May 90 4:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20540; 2 May 90 2:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01511; 2 May 90 1:26 CDT Date: Wed, 2 May 90 0:57:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #304 BCC: Message-ID: <9005020057.ab04584@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 May 90 00:56:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 304 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Carl Moore] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Scott Fybush] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Paul Sawyer] Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Kee Hinckley] Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [David Leibold] Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' [John R. Levine] Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Dan'l DanehyOakes] Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security [Troy Monaghen] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [John R. Levine] Hotel Phone Charges (was Re: Teletronics) [S. Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:51:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station I believe that cross-listing service/gas stations by brand of gas is done elsewhere. For example, it was in a 1979 Northeastern Md. phone book I just looked up. Apparently some places do not do such cross- listing? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:57:36 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station In reply to John Higdon: There are a number of reasons why a *gas* (not a service) station wouldn't need or want a listed number. If there's only one person staffing the station, which is frequently the case, a ringing phone can be both a distraction and an impediment to serving the customer. Besides, why would you need to call a gas station, especially (as mine was) a 24-hour one..."Hi, how much is your regular unleaded this week?" Also, I am reasonably certain that Rochester Tel will not allow pay phones to be listed as business lines. Scott Fybush ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:09:11 GMT In article <7066@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I'm sorry, I don't understand. If this was your "business" telephone, >why wouldn't you want it listed? If you received incoming calls at >all, why wouldn't you want the public at large to be able to call in? >Were these only personal calls that had nothing to do with the >business? This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain whose policy is NO TELEPHONES! Have you ever been at a checkout, with one or two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat for five minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets in every store in a ten mile radius? Mr. Aubuchon decided years ago that the store personnel had a responsibility to give their full attention to the customer in the store. Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030 ------------------------------ From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia Organization: asi Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:41:14 GMT In article <6996@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >The operation was simple, "Insert the amount of money for your call. >Pick up the handset and dial your desired call, STD or otherwise. If >you hear the party you want answer the call, press Button A to be able I rather prefer the pay-phone at the country store near my parents in Maine. There you dial the number, wait for the party to answer, and then insert the coins. For a short amount of time you can both converse without inserting any money, after which they can talk, but they won't be able to hear you. Needless to say, this is great if you've forgoten what you were supposed to get at the store. (It's not a Bell system, but rather Community Service Telephone, which covers 5 or 6 towns in their area.) -kee | Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: 617/646-7703 | Home: 617/641-3805 | | 148 Scituate St. | Smart fax, dial number. | | | Arlington, MA 02174 | Dumb fax, dial number, | BBS: 617/641-3722 | | nazgul@alphalpha.com | wait for ring, press 3. | 300/1200/2400 baud | ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:50:41 GMT In article <7028@accuvax.nwu.edu> root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: >In article <6959@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Another interesting system occurs in the National Capital Region of >Canada (Ottawa on the Ontario side of the border Area Code 613 and >Hull on the Quebec side of the border Area Code 819). The Federal >Gov't Centrex exchange (99X although I think they may have recently >changed it) can be reached through either area code (ie. 613-99X-XXXX >or 819-99X-XXXX). In addition, this exchange is a local call on both >sides of the boundary. >An interesting side issue is what number would show up with Caller >Identification?? Interesting indeed, considering that Ottawa is the first in Bell Canada's territory to have Caller ID in regular service... however, the exchanges generally follow certain sides of the creek: Ottawa-side (613 Ontario): 943, 945, 951, 952, 954, 955, 957, 990, 991, 992, 993, 995, 996, 998 Hull-side (819 Quebec): 953, 956, 994, 997 Another strange occurrence is that St Regis Quebec has the exchange 613-575, 613 of course supposed to be representing eastern Ontario, an exception to the political boundary situation. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 30 Apr 90 18:00:21 EDT (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article <7002@accuvax.nwu.edu> mtndew!friedl@uunet.uu.net (Steve Friedl) writes: > Is there *any* place in the country where a 0+ payphone call will >be routed over AT&T but will say just "Thank you"? Another such place is Lake Buena Vista FL, served by Vista-United, the phone company with the mouse ears on the phone book. This company, which seems to be related financially to both United Tel and the Disney people, exists solely to serve Disney World and the related businesses in its immediate area. As far as I can tell, it has no residential subscribers. In any event, if you dial 0 from either a payphone or a hotel, you get an AT&T operator who doubles as the local operator. (A real local operator, too, I called to report that I always got fast busy when trying to call the number to make dinner reservations at EPCOT, and as soon as I told her the number, she recognized it and told me that it's extremely overloaded, she didn't have any way to get in either.) Dialing 0+number gets a bong with no "AT&T" recording, but after you enter the card number a funky local sounding recording thanks you for using AT&T. Unless, of course, you're using one of the COCOTs at the non-Disney owned hotels which thank you for being a sucker and using their AOS company. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dan'l DanehyOakes Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 1 May 90 18:50:42 GMT Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA In article <7024@accuvax.nwu.edu> stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) writes: >NJ Bell is trying to create a "market" for Caller ID by having an >older brother "teach" a younger sister to answer calls only from >their mother's or father's work number. Mr. Krieger it's apparent that you are not a parent. CID is definitely prefer- able to an answering machine for this purpose, for a number of reasons. . . but since most of them are emotional, I won't go into them. But I have to observe that there is no need to create a market for CID. Businesses want it badly. The advantage to (for example) a broker is obvious: route the CID information to your data base, and by the time you pick up the phone, the name and account summary of your client are on the screen in front of you -- you can answer the phone, "Hi, George. Did you want to sell that Ameritech today?" [or whatever]. The advantage to 911 services also seems obvious; and this alone justifies the service, imao. Finally. . . the "invasion of privacy" argument is nothing but a red herring. The caller has chosen to invade the callee's privacy by ringing the phone; I suggest that the callee has the right to know who's ringing the phone so s/he can make an informed decision about whether to answer or not. Claiming that CID invades the caller's privacy is like saying you should have the right to knock on doors wearing a mask and disguising your voice. Fooey. By the way, I wouldn't bother writing to WWOR. I guarantee they know the topic is controversial. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ Subject: Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:13:34 EDT From: Troy Monaghen Reply-To: troym@amtfocus.cell.mot.com After reading several articles about Caller-ID on the mailing list I started wondering if it could be used for dial-up modem security. It would seem to be a step above a system where the modem calls the user back at an authorized number. With Caller-ID it could be set up so that the modem never even answers the phone unless the call is from an authorized number. This way a hacker would never even know that a modem was on the other end of the the number they are calling. Any comments on how well this would work? Does anybody know of a Caller-ID device with an RS232 port so I can connect it to my computer? Is caller ID really secure or is there a possibility of a phone hacker somehow faking it out? Thanks in advance for any information. Troy Monaghen, Motorola, Inc. |\| Internet: troym@Mot.COM General Systems Sector |/| UUCP: ...!mcdchg!amtfocus!troym Advanced Manufacturing Technology |\| Local: troym@amtfocus ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 1 May 90 13:33:45 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article <7076@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Has any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the >charges when you ask? Yes, I have had hotels try to charge me ten bucks for a call to 950-1022 because "the computer said so." Every time I check out, I have to look at the bill to remove calls placed from other rooms, calls that got a busy signal, you name it. It's a major pain in the neck. >In fact, I would be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very >detailed explanation of rates and charging methods available. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. They tend to be particularly vague when it comes to charges for calling card and direct dial long distance, and 800 calls. I bet there isn't one hotel in 10 that could tell you what a calling card call would cost unless they are among the few that still charges the flat AT&T rate. The claim that you should pay extra for your room phone because it costs the hotel is self-serving twaddle. Hotels put phones in the rooms because it makes it more likely for people to stay there, the same reason they provide towels, soap, and furniture, none of which cost extra at any hotel with which I am familiar. Personally, I find the current situation little better than no phone since to know what I'm going to pay I have to go to the lobby and use a pay phone, which as often as not is a misprogrammed COCOT. Hotels are driving away clients by nickel and diming them to death and I am increasingly inclined to stay at the Motel 6 where you pay what you pay and that's that. A Travelodge where I stayed last month had pay movies on the TV instead of free HBO, overpriced coke machines masquerading as in-room refrigerators, 75 cent local and 800 calls from room phones, COCOTs in the lobby, and even attempted to make me pay a "mandatory" dollar per day surcharge for the local paper and an in-room safe, neither of which I wanted. They won't be seeing me again, even though the hotel and its restaurant were otherwise pretty nice. If hotels wised up and made calls from room phones cost the same as calls from a pay phone, e.g. 25 cents for a local call, direct dial rate plus 75 cents for a long distance call, no surcharge for 0+ or 800 calls, they'd probably make out as well as or better than now. I expect MCI or Sprint would be happy to come up with an arrangement at those rates that still gave some revenue back to the hotel. Customers would make more calls, and they'd be more likely to come back, too. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:00 EDT From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." Subject: Hotel Phone Charges (was Re: Teletronics...) In Telecom Digest, Issue 301, root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > In article <6986@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: > As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at > the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges. Has > any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the > charges when you ask? I would be very surprised if this were so; > therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest? In fact, I would > be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed > explanation of rates and charging methods available. I've never, in many attempts, gotten an accurate disclosure of hotel phone billing charges when checking in, verbally or in writing, even though I always ask. On the other hand, before I got wise and stopped using phones in hotel rooms, the manager always came up with an explanation of all charges after the fact, usually a clumsy one, based on his or her interpretation of the surprise bill. > While we are on the subject, I would like to mention one of the > rationales (I do not necessarily agree with it) for charging a local > call at a rate higher than a pay phone call -- pay phones don't answer > incoming calls and take messages for you when you are not in your > room. Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt; > however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much, > if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack > up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your > phone calls?? In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial > statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a > profit. This is usually break-even at best. You should charge more for outgoing calls because incoming calls take time and money to service? Gimme a break. If you want to recoup the cost of the receptionist's time, charge $1 for each incoming message. This whole idea that phone charges should pay for the entire hotel phone system is phony. Why not put pay TV, pay hot water and pay electrical appliances in the hotel, so that the TV, hot water and electrical operations break even. Of course maybe that would be a good idea. It would be "fairer" to those customers who don't shower or who don't watch TV, or who don't use the lights. S.Kass|Math&CS Dept|Drew U|Madison NJ 07940|2014083614|skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #304 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14640; 2 May 90 4:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20540; 2 May 90 2:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01511; 2 May 90 1:26 CDT Date: Wed, 2 May 90 0:27:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #303 BCC: Message-ID: <9005020027.ab16103@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 May 90 00:27:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 303 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [John Cowan] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Bob Goudreau] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Joel Spolsky] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Randal Schwartz] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Carl Moore] Re: Context=dependent Phone Numbers? [Chris Ambler] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Peter da Silva] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Bob Haddleton] Re: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month [Ralph Hightower] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:13:52 GMT In article <7084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Tom Perrine writes: >If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country, >I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for >international dialing access", the country code (which you just have >to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct? Not quite. The + all by itself means "local international access code". The 1 is the country code for USA/Canada/Caribbean nations. So, for example, if 00 is the international access code, then you would dial a U.S. number as 00-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. >I guess I am looking for an international phone number format that can >be written into a spec for addresses in "dial-SMTP". All countries everywhere that are direct-dialable at all can be handled with at most 3 digits of country code and at most 12 digits of intracountry phone number. (In fact, I doubt any country actually uses more than 10 digits, the U.S. maximum, but 12 digits are allowed for by relevant CCITT standards). What does require local adaptation is deciding what to strip off the front when calling a number that is in fact local. This can be done with a set of "rewrite rules" of the form X -> Y, which means: "If the international phone number begins with X, remove the X and substitute Y." These rewrite rules must be applied in order to get the right results. Here are the rewrite rules for me in 212-land: "+1212" -> "" ; rewrite intra-NPA with no prefix "+1" -> "1" ; rewrite intra-country with 1+ prefix "+" -> "011" ; rewrite international to use 011 dialing These are easy to modify to adapt to other area codes, countries, phone services, etc. etc. Naturally, you need to strip out all hyphens, parentheses, etc. etc. before applying these codes. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 15:07:43 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <7084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) writes: > As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it > appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number. Au contraire, mon ami. > How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and > dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great > deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software > (probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz > into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world. This is actually a different (and harder) problem than specifying a phone number in a universal manner. See below for more discussion. > If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country, > I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for > international dialing access", the country code (which you just have > to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct? You're on the right track, but that's not quite right. It's the "+" *alone* that means "dial the international access code". Here in most of the NANP (North American Numbering Plan, which encompasses the US, Canada and most of the Caribbean), "+" should be translated to "011". In the UK, "+" equals "010". In West Germany, it's "00". In other words, the international access code varies from country to country. The number immediately *after* the "+" is the country code, a unique number with one, two, or three digits. We in the NANP happen to be graced with the country code "1", which is one of only two single-digit country codes in the entire system (the other being the USSR, which has "7"). It's mere happenstance that our country code is identical with the inter-area-code prefix that we use to dial long distance *within* the confines of the NANP. (Note also that even though country codes have variable length, there's no ambiguity. This is because no two-digit or three-digit country codes have as their first digit any of the one-digit country codes, and no three-digit country codes have as their first two digits any of the two-digit country codes.) So, yes, there is a "universal" way to unambiguously specify a telephone number, and the example you give is correct for a number in the NANP. But knowing the exact sequence of digits to dial is slightly harder, since some additional knowledge is needed to fully parse a "+" format phone number: 1) You need to know if you're already *inside* the destination country code. For example, if I try to dial 011-1-919-248-6231 from my home phone, it won't work -- Southern Bell and AT&T won't let me dial a domestic call as if it were an international call. 2) If you are in some other country than your call destination, you need to know if direct international dialing is even available from your phone (and if it is, whether the country you're calling is reachable). Equipment capabilities and international politics can make this a non-trivial question. 3) Assuming that's okay, you still need to know the international access prefix in use in the country from which you're calling. Assuming that your database will stay in one particular country, items 2 and 3 can be taken care of just once. But you'll probably still have to special-case item 1, so that domestic calls get dialed correctly. And there might even be another layer or two of special-casing under that, to handle the difference between local and long-distance domestic calls. To give you a concrete example, here's how I would set up such an autodialing system if I had one in my office: 1) Strip off the leading "+" and examine the number to be dialed If it doesn't begin with "1", then dial "011" and then the entire number. Otherwise, strip the leading "1" off the number and continue to the next rule. 2) Examine the first three digits. If they're not "919", then dial "1" and then the number. Otherwise, strip off the leading "919" and continue to the next rule. 3) Examine the first three digits. If they're "248", "481", or any of the many other exchanges available in my local calling area, then just dial the number. Otherwise, dial "1919" and then the number. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ From: Joel Spolsky Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: 1 May 90 15:56:11 GMT Reply-To: Joel Spolsky Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 In article <7084@accuvax.nwu.edu> tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) writes: >As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it >appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number. >If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country, >I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for >international dialing access", the country code (which you just have >to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct? Nope. The "+" means "dial whatever your telco requires for int'l dialing access". The 1 means your country code is 1 (US). So numbers in England are +44.City Code.Phone Number. This is, fortunately, becoming something of a standard in Europe. | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1538 | ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:41:53 GMT In article <7084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tots!tep@logicon (Tom Perrine) writes: | If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country, | I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for | international dialing access", the country code (which you just have | to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct? No. The "+" is the indication for a canonical international phone number (exactly what you asked for), and is immediately followed by the country code. In this case, "1" is the country code for the US! The similarity to how we US-residents access a non-international long-distance phone number probably confused you. In other countries, they would dial whatever sequence they need to get to "international long distance", then "1 xxx yyy zzzz". Think of the "+" as a macro that expands to the "international long distance access function". Just another telephone user, =Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ========== | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:16:12 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Tom Perrine writes "+1 xxx yyy zzzz". But that IS the form used for displaying your phone number in U.S., Canada, or Caribbean area (which all lie in country code 1) in other areas! The 1 also happens to be the long- distance access code in much of the area served by country code 1. ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: Tue, 1 May 90 8:43:57 GMT Organization: Dr. Ho's secret laboratory and day care centre. tots!tep@logicon.com (Tom Perrine) recently informed us: >As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it >appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number. >How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and >dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great >deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software >(probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz >into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world. I, too, could use something that would help out in this case. In my case, I am writing a BBS and get frequent overseas callers. The way I do it now is as what country the caller is from. If it's the USA, I know that the phone number is (XXX) YYY-ZZZ (canada and a few other places too). Otherwise, I just give them a 25 character string to fill. I'd like to know the formats so I could prompt for them. ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 1 May 90 21:57:39 GMT > What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the > significant costs associated with extending outside cable plant. [ comprehensive cost estimate for extra lines deleted ] But what about new technology? Suppose you put some sort of multiplexors on those lines, and ran a bunch of digital voice over the major portion of the existing plant? How does that change the economics? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. Have you hugged your wolf today? Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable. ------------------------------ From: bobh1@cbnewse.att.com Date: Tue, 1 May 90 20:50 EDT Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant Organization: AT&T Network Systems Patrick: I haven't been reading this newsgroup too long, but I followed this topic from the beginning, and one thing that people seem to have overlooked is the following: Telcos are not ALLOWED to force people to change from multi-party service to (more convenient) more expensive single line service. It may have been part of the MFJ or some other rulings, (FCC? PUC?) but I have been told that the reason that the latest and greatest digital switches have to provide multi-party service is because the telcos cannot simply replace all of the party lines with individual lines when they go digital due to the rulings. This prevents the telcos from forcing rural customers to pay higher rates for services they may not really need. This is good for the customers, but tends to make life difficult for the telcos/switch vendors. Bob Haddleton r.haddleton@att.com Bob Haddleton AT&T Network Systems (708)979-0596 att!nwgpb!bobh Lisle, IL Bob_Haddleton@ATT.COM My opinions are my own, if I could only remember where I left them... ------------------------------ From: Ralph Hightower Subject: Re: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month Date: 1 May 90 15:22:34 GMT Reply-To: Ralph Hightower Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC In article <7033@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: >Recently there have been submissions to the Digest that people were >receiving phone calls consisting of recorded sales pitches which gave >only a 900 number for the solicitee to call back if he or she is >interested. The costs of these 900 calls are usually a good deal >steeper than those to the talk lines. It's hard to believe that > : I've gotten mad at these telemarketers using "prizes" as an incentive for you to visit their time-share condos and get some cheap prize for listening to the sales pitch. I got one call from Awards Verification Service in North Carolina (area code 919) telling me that I had won a Suzuki Samarai (isn't that the one that flips over?) on my answering machine. So I called them direct (my dime) and learn that it's a sleazy time-share condo deal in Santee SC; well I told them that I was never interested in a time-share anything and I thought that was that. Two days later, another message on the machine from AVS giving me the same pitch. Well, I'm smarter now; I didn't use my money to make the call. I called COLLECT. It turns out that Awards Verification Service will not accept collect calls, but they pull my name & number out of their "records" and call me back. That's when I told them that I never was, not now, and never will be interested in time-shares and NEVER EVER CALL ME AGAIN! She snidely replied "Have a nice day!" So I wonder, is it possible to call a 900 number collect? Ralph.Hightower@Columbia.NCR.COM NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC Home of THE USC! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #303 ****************************** ISSUES 303 - 304 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 304 APPEARS IN FRONT OF 303 IN THIS ARCHIVE. THE NEXT ISSUE HERE IS 305.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16724; 2 May 90 5:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31373; 2 May 90 3:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20540; 2 May 90 2:33 CDT Date: Wed, 2 May 90 1:50:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #305 BCC: Message-ID: <9005020150.ab05637@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 May 90 01:49:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 305 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Card [Dennis Brophy] Re: The Card [Roy Smith] Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Peter da Silva] Re: The Card (details) [Johnny Zweig] Re: The Card, TDD Style [Ken Harrenstien] Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Kim Long] Re: AT&T Universal Card [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [Mark Robert Smith] Re: Playing Matchmaker [Peter da Silva] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [David E. Martin] Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Douglas S. Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 May 90 11:38:16 PDT From: Dennis Brophy Subject: Re: The Card Why not apply I thought? A chance to combine a charge card with the bulky calling card is wonderful. Yes, AMEX has MCI, but I have failed to use it. Perhaps this will make it easier for me. But of course, nothing can be simple. With two Dennis Brophy's in the same small Oregon town, there is going to be some problems. I've already been asked to pay this guys 1-year overdue energy bills. I wonder if AT&T will know the difference between us? I guess they don't (at least not yet): "Thank you for applying for the AT&T Universal Card. "We regret that we are unable to grant your request at this time because: YOUR CREDIT HISTORY INCLUDES SLOW AND/OR PAST DUE PAYMENTS YOUR CREDIT HISTORY INCLUDES DEROGATORY PAYMENT HISTORY YOUR CREDIT HISTORY DOES NOT MEET THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT "This information was provided by..." So, I called AT&T and ask out of curiosity if my CREDIT HISTORY is tarnished with failures to pay the gas/electric companies? Because if that is so, they really belong to someone else. One moment and let me see what we have here... Based on what I see and what you have said, I will forward this to our Credit Manager for review... Has a person looked at this before I asked? No, the authorization process is computerized, but mistakes do happen... What are you reading about my CREDIT HISTORY, I ask. I'm not permitted to give you this information. You may ask for a full report from the company giving us this information which should be on the letter you are reading. Well, I really don't need The Card. I usually only use AMEX and keep a MC as a backup. Perhaps I have more time to decide if I want it or not. The saga continues... Dennis Brophy INTERNET: dennisb@pdx.MENTOR.COM Mentor Graphics Corp. MCI MAIL: 4222648 (...!uiucuxc!mcimail.com!0004222648) 8500 SW Creekside Place VOICE: +1-503-626-1415 Beaverton, OR 97005-7191 FAX: +1-503-626-1282 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:06:26 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: The Card Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City In article <7074@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > [Moderator's Note: *Please* send more details on this! How was that > explained-away by AT&T, or did they bother? Is the card working now? PT] I'll send a note for distribution on the list when all the dust settles. AT&T is supposed to be calling us back when the figured out what went wrong. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!" ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 15:24:53 GMT In article <6937@accuvax.nwu.edu> douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) writes: > There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By > using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone > conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer > satisfaction." > Whoa, what a stipulation, huh? I suspect your contract with the local operating company has similar wording. I also suspect that this only refers to calls you make on the AT&T card, not your local phone. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable. ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: The Card (details) Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Tue, 1 May 90 19:13:00 GMT I just got my packet of information about the AT&T Universal Card. The deal with the calling-card number is that these calls appear on the same bill as your VISA purchases, but form part of the monthly minimum payment (i.e. you can't let the balance slide and pay interest as you can with credit purchases) -- they are separate but included, as it were. Also the Buyer Protection (tm) is part of every purchase on every card, not just a goodie for Gold VISA carriers. Johnny Card ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 15:10:56 PDT From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: Re: The Card, TDD Style I thought I would throw in another tidbit about AT&T's Universal Card. When I finally got the brochure info, a week after receiving the actual card (itself about 3 weeks after telephonic application), I found that buried near the end was a TDD number for customer service (800/367-8997), and called that just to check it out. At first I got an auto-answer TDD announcement asking callers to leave a message. However, when I started typing what was to be a grumble about their "service guarantee", I was interrupted by a live person. It turns out that they have 6 TDDs online; I don't know how that compares with the number of voice lines, but at least it's more than just one. These lines are also supposed to be staffed 24 hours a day, just like the voice lines; this is very good, since in my experience most TDD numbers that parallel 24-hour services are in truth only active during normal work hours for that timezone. On the other hand, he may just have meant that calls would be answered by something, rather than someone. Maybe I should test it at 2am to find out. In the middle of our conversation we were cut off (gee, and I could have sworn I was using AT&T...) and my attempts to call back were met with nonsensical noise signals, which I later found were saying "All lines are busy, please hold and blah blah etc" -- not real helpful for TDD callers. On the other hand, a few minutes after I gave up trying, I received a call back from the service agent who was using the number I had left at the start of my message. He apologized for the disconnect, said he had tried calling back immediately but kept getting busy signals (telephone tag, I guess) and said they were working on the busy-message problem. So I'd rate their service as promising ... not perfect, but they seem to be trying. They did misspell my name on the first card, but I received a corrected card one week after calling them about it; good enough. I just wish they would publish the TDD number alongside the voice number, since the latter is printed in literally hundreds of different places, whereas the TDD number only appears in one place. In particular, it is not printed on the card itself. Oh well, what's a little more consciousness raising. Aside from that, it looks like a GREAT deal, especially for someone like myself who has a completely null credit history (long story). I was concerned about having the calling card # embossed, but it turns out that they just assigned me what appears to be an arbitrarily generated 507-nnn-nnnn number (I'm sure someone can tell us what it means), with a 4-digit PIN mailed in a separate letter. The brochure does say you can ask to be assigned a specific PIN, but since one of its uses is calling-card identification, I doubt they'll allow using more than 4 digits (my bank card has 7, which I'd prefer). What I find most interesting is that the same PIN is supposed to be used both for calling-card calls and ATM transactions! Since the PIN can be changed anytime by calling Customer Service, this implies a degree of cooperation between the telephone and banking industries I didn't realize existed. Anyway, I'm very happy to have it and am very, very glad that I saw the original news release in TELECOM, courtesy of Don H. Kemp! Ken ------------------------------ From: Kim Long Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) Date: 2 May 90 01:12:12 GMT Reply-To: Kim Long Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Roy Smith wrote: > Meanwhile, my wife (some weeks later) called and applied for >the card over the phone. She got her VISA Gold a week or two ago. We >also could not figure out what makes a gold card gold other than the >color of the plastic. What she didn't get was any description of the I worked for Chevy Chase Visa as a customer service rep for about six months. The main difference between one of our Gold cards and the Silver was the line of credit. I think to get Gold you had to be approved for $5000. I believe the "buyers protection" and other options were expanded to include all card holders in order to compete with American Express. klong@umd5.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card Re the AT&T Universal Card: I first got through at 4:00 am of the morning after their first day. I asked for, and got, a complete explanation of their requirements, fees, charges, and perks right on line, and then applied, all in the same call. By April 10, AT&T had sent me a letter explaining why I didn't qualify. By April 20, I had a brand spanking new AT&T Universal Card (yes, I had meanwhile called to "explain away" my "bad credit history"). My first charge, in area 603 country on April 28, was troublefree. Prof. F.E.J. Linton FLinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU fejlinton@mcimail.com Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. FLinton@WESLEYAN.bitnet attmail!fejlinton Middletown, CT 06457 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w) 1 203 776 2210 (h) [Moderator's Note: And with this final series of messages, we must end the 'Card' discussion, and side-threads which have started on the topic. It simply is going too far away from our theme of telecom. Of course, you may wish to write to each other, but nothing further can appear here on on the topic. Thanks. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 11:23:40 EDT From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards Can anybody get one of these Telecom*USA cards? It sounds like I might want to? Is there a number to call? Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu [Moderator's Note: You have to be a customer of theirs; either through their 800 service (as am I), or a dial 1+ customer. They are located in Cedar Rapids, IA, and have an 800 number for their customer service. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Playing Matchmaker Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 1 May 90 00:37:47 GMT In article <6962@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: I once had some fool use his three-way calling to > connect me with some other party. I had someone do that to me recently. I apparently upset some bozo charging their calls to our number by telling on them, so they started 3-waying us to various automatic messages (phone-mail systems, and the like). Your bozo was obviously not that inventive. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable. ------------------------------ From: dem@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (David E. Martin) Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Date: 1 May 90 20:28:55 GMT Reply-To: dem@iexist.ATT.COM (David E. Martin) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL In article <7076@accuvax.nwu.edu> root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: >As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at >the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges. Has >any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the >charges when you ask? I would be very surprised if this were so; >therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest? In fact, I would >be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed >explanation of rates and charging methods available. I have been on the road a lot during the last few months and I have rarely found a desk clerk that can give a good explanation of a hotel's charges for using the telephone. Quite often I have been told that using my calling card will not result in any charges when upon checkout there is a $1.00 charge for every call. It usually takes a manager to get the charges removed after a lot of arguing. Finding a printed and understandable list of charges almost never happens. On a related note, few hotel operators have any clue how to reach AT&T if their default carrier is something else. The dialing instructions they give me usually get me a local operator or a reorder tone. Interestingly enough, the expensive chains (Hilton, Omni, Hyatt, etc.) are the worst for bad explanations and bizarre charges. Motel 6, on the other hand, has free local calls and no charge for using a calling card. You'd think the big ``service oriented'' hotels (that charge five times as much) could match Motel 6. David Martin AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL dem@iexist.att.com ------------------------------ Date: 2-MAY-1990 01:35:01.28 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone I've seen recent discussion about reprogramming Cell Phones, and would like to try it out myself. I'm particularly interested in this as I frequently travel down to Washington DC from Connecticut, where I have service. I don't encounter any daily roam charges or very high-priced roam charges until I get out of Northern New Jersey, but once I enter South Jersey, I go through * 4 * different systems until I get to the DC system. Cell One South Jersey / Monmouth County - $3 Roam charge, $.80 min. Cell One South Jersey / Mercer City - $3 Raom charge, $.80 min. MetroPhone / Philadelphia - $3 Roam charge, $.90 min! Cell One / Wilmingotn, DE - $3 Roam charge, ? min. Also note that Cell One Monmouth County and Mercer city are the SAME system, ie, Cell One of South Jersey, but they are slimey enough to charge me a daily charge for each area! As Cell One South Jersey has DMX/special Roam agreements with all the above systems (as well as Orange County, NY, with another $3 a day charge, and nice $.75 per min rates ... :-( ), if I could get a $19.95 account with Cell One South Jersey, within one round trip I'd save money, assuming I made calls in each system, from Wilmington to NY, along the way. So ... if anoyne knows how to reprogram an Audiovox CMT-450 cell phone, I'd love to hear about it ... I know the System ID# for both systems involved (Cell One Jersey and Metro Mobile/CT), my ESN, etc., and the rest of the info I can get from Cell One. (They didn't care who did it, as long as I forked over the $19.95 per month!) Anyhow, if anyone has any info, please let me know or just post to the Digest... Thanks in advance, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...! :-) ) [Moderator's Note: Whenever you make any changes in programming, be certain to obtain the carrier's approval and permission before actually using the instrument. And I hope that anyone responding publicly or privately to Mr. Reuben will include a disclaimer in their message like this one pointing out that it is illegal to reprogram your cell phone to avoid the lawful charges of a carrier. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #305 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14534; 3 May 90 2:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22039; 3 May 90 0:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21602; 2 May 90 23:54 CDT Date: Wed, 2 May 90 23:50:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #306 BCC: Message-ID: <9005022350.ab05885@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 May 90 23:49:44 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 306 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ring Amplification [Phillip Wherry] Party Line Interface [David Brightbill] Free Unlisted Numbers [Gary Segal] x11 Numbers in San Diego [Douglas W. Martin] Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Jim Gonzalez] Long Distance Down the Street [Robert M. Hamer] Q's About Northern Telecom SL/1 and VRV [John E. Girard] A Coat Hanger [Edward Greenberg] State Computer Networks For Small Businesses? [Alex Cruz] Canada Calling [David Leibold] Calling Card Billing to Visa (not The Card) [Joseph C. Pistritto] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwherry@mwunix.mitre.org (Phillip Wherry) Subject: Ring Amplification Date: 1 May 90 16:42:55 GMT Reply-To: pwherry@mwunix.mitre.org.UUCP (Phillip Wherry) Organization: Mitre Corporation I have a Viking FaxJac III on my telephone line (this is one of those gadgets which answers the telephone and listens for an automatic fax send (CNG) tone or DTMF call routing digits; it then rings the fax line or the voice line as appropriate. The problem I've encountered with the device is that it is only capable of driving two or three REN 1.0 loads; if you have more than a few phones connected downstream of the device, it can't generate enough current to ring all of them. Does anyone know of a device which sits in between the line and the telephones which is designed to boost ringing current locally? I would appreciate specific references if possible. My guess is that this topic is not of overwhelming interest; send e-mail replies directly to me. If you're interested in hearing how all of this works out, feel free to drop me a note and I'll send you a summary once I have some answers. As always, if demand warrants, I'll happily post a summary. Thanks! Phil Wherry The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org voice/fax: 804 253 7629 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:20:33 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Party Line Interface While doing some electrical work on a neighbor's house, I came across an interesting device. At one time, the neighbor, like most folks in our neck of the woods, had a 4 party line. Now almost everyone has single party service. Anyhow, next to the service entrance/protector/demark box was a small black potted box the size of a pack of non-filter camels. It is labeled Transcom Tip Party Identifier - TPI 5/CL - A 1/0. It has a red led on the bottom and a five conductor cable (r/g/b/y/w). The cable was cut and the neighbor never remembered it being connected...of course there is a lot she dosen't remember ;-). My guess is that the r/g pair went to the protector box, the b/y pair to the inside plant, and the white to gnd. My guess is that it functioned as a ring filter and also provided a signalback to the co identifying the subscriber. David B. ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Free Unlisted Numbers Date: 1 May 90 16:25:28 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division john@pyrnj.pyramid.com (John Kurzman) writes: >This also reminds me of an accident that happened to me when I had my >phone listed with a spelling error in my last name. I wrote the first >letter of my last name sloppily, ie. H instead of K, and so was listed >under 'Hurzman' instead of 'Kurzman'. This might have been a small >typographical error, but it put me in a totally different section of >the Manhattan Phone Book. In effect, I had a free unlisted number, but >better yet, I could tell someone how to look me up if I wanted them >to. This to reminds me of the method my brother used to obtain a psuedo unlisted number. Some years back when he was a student, he ordered phone service. When the rep asked what name he wanted listed, he said "Lages" (the alert reader will notice that this is my last name - backwords). The rep asked him if this was a stage name or such, and he told her the truth - he just wanted a different listing. To his surprise, she accepted the explaination, and entered the backwords name! As with Kurzman's listing, my brother was able to tell people how to find him when he wanted to. The most usefull feature of his listing was when telemarketters called and asked for "Mr. Lages", he knew right away what was calling, and what to do with it... :-) I've always wondered why the rep allowed him to use the reverse name. Was she just amused by his idea, and decided to let it go? Or was there some regulation that allows individuals to use psuedo names for non business purposes? Gary Segal, Motorola CID 1501 W. Shure Drive Arlington Heights, IL 60004 the above is my opinion only, not Motorola's -----| ...!uunet!motcid!segal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:28:04 PDT From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: x11 Numbers in San Diego Here is a list of what the x11 numbers in San Diego, (area code 619) do. I hope someone can explain the purpose of some of these numbers. 311 rings and is never answered. 511 is always busy. 711xxxx gets a recording that "the call cannot be completed as dialed." 811xxxx connects to various Pac Bell offices. and: 211xxxx usually gets a very loud pulsing tone. This is true for 2112222 and 2113333. Dialing 2119999 waits for more digits. It does not appear to time out, and dialing four more digits gets the same loud pulsing tone mentioned above. 211-1111 gets a quiet line, which eventually times out and disables the keypad. Can anyone explain the purpose for 211, 311, and 511 here in San Diego. Furthermore, I would be interested in knowing any test numbers for this area. Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Jim Gonzalez Subject: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool Date: 1 May 90 17:29:28 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gonzalez Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about inexpensive punch-down tools. I think I've located one, though. Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but they also offer a less expensive one for $16. My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool? It is a Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT. They warn that it is only suitable for occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block. Is this a serious risk? -Jim. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:23 EDT From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" Subject: Long Distance Down the Street "Gregory G. Woodbury" writes: > Dialing in Durham to the extended calling area is still only >7D. All other calls are 1+NPA+7D. Duke University, embedded in >Durham's GTE satrapy, is not participating in the extended calling >area and all calls beyond the traditional local area are 1+NPA+7D. >Makes for a confusing situation when dialing Chapel Hill from home >versus calling from Duke. The ability to use N0/1X exchange numbers >will only set back the need for another area code in NC for 4 years! If I am remembering correctly what I read occasionally down there, there are plans (perhaps already implemented) to make dialing the Research Triangle Park local from Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, and vica-versa. Or maybe making the entire triangle area some sort of extended local area. I suspect some of the difficulties stem from different telephone companies. Back when I was in school there, the Chapel Hill Telephone Company was owned by the University -- it supplied service to the entire town; not just the University. Similarly (if I remember correctly), so was the electric / power company. Sometime around 1970 the University divested itself of both properties. Durham telephone service is supplied by GTE. For a while (1974-1977) I lived in a house on a street which I think was inside Chapel Hill city limits, but was less than one block from where Durham County began. (Actually, I think I was about 3 houses from Durham county -- it was a short block, about 4 fairly widely separated houses: there was my house, a hundred feet or so of woods, another house, and then across the street from that house: Durham County. It was a long distance phone call from my house to another house 2 houses away and probably not more than a couple of hundred feet away. I would be interested in what things are like there now. Also, the various branches of the University (UNC Chapel Hill, UNC Greensboro, NC State in Raleigh) had some sort of system they called "Telpac (or Telpak)." By dialing, say, 125 (say, for Raleigh, from UNC) one would be presented with a Raleigh dial tone, and one could dial out. This was only supposed to work from UNC office phones, but somehow (God knows how; I was an undergraduate and should be forgiven for both stupidity and a lack of moral sense) I discovered that from a pay phone with the same exchange as UNC (933) I could dial 1-9, wait a few seconds, and then dial 1-2-5, and get a Raleigh dial tone. Furthermore, I discovered that one could then dial LONG DISTANCE using that Raleigh dial tone, and it would go through. God knows to where it was billed. When some of my friends and relatives began getting calls asking if they knew anyone in Raleigh from the phone company, I stopped doing it. I went to the business office and offered to pay for any calls I had made, but they couldn't find but perhaps one or two. Considering it from the present, I wonder at the sort of moral "hole" in my reasoning that allowed me to think that was right. Another Chapel Hill particularity was that all Chapel Hill prefixes started with 9 (e.g., 933-, 942-, 968-), but one had to only dial the last 6 digits (e.g., 42-5432) would connect you with 942-5432. Another was that accessing long distance required a 3-digit access code, different for different phones, and some phones (this is 1968) still required operator intervention. (All required it when the access codes didn't work, which they often didn't). ------------------------------ From: "John E. Girard" Subject: Q's About Northern Telecom SL/1 and VRV Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:13:17 GMT I am working with a company that has 10 Northern Telecom SL/1s, and are installing VRVs (voice response). These will be connected to SNA/CICS applications and integrated with ACD for backup routing. The questions: 1. Who, other than Northern Telecom knows how to program the VRV? 2. Any advice/caveats before it gets rolled out to 300,000+ users? Please repond to: John Girard 415-968-3324 jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 00:21 PDT From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: A Coat Hanger Found on a wooden coat hanger, here at work: H. C. Nahman Merchant Tailor Est. Since 1906 807 Divisadero St. San Francisco, Cal. Phone WEST 1393 ------------------------------ From: Alex Cruz Subject: State Computer Networks For Small Businesses? Date: 1 May 90 19:42:18 GMT Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC Dear Telecom readers: I am currently doing some research in the possibility of establishing a state wide computer network in the State of Ohio to aid small and medium size industries. I am looking for past experiences in other states. If you are aware of any state or person that I could contact regarding a failed/successful state funded or state run computer network, could you please send me some e-mail. I am aware of the Cleveland FreeNet and I know that State of Washington had a task force in 1989 suggesting such an idea. This network would have 5 main features: + e-mail with gateways to major networks. + bulletin boards/discussion groups. + electronic file exchange: - an extremely refined FTP - any size, any format, any where - automatic encryption/decryption included + database access: - gateways to major databases - databases with State of Ohio information: . representatives addresses . product index . industry index . researchers index, etc + access to remote computers: - basically a TELNET clone. If anybody has any comments on this, please feel free to get in touch with me or post them. I am very interested and apparently, so are a lot of other people. I just happen to have the time and resources to investigate this issue (and meanwhile, make a Master's thesis out of it). Thanks in advance, ** Alex Cruz - Graduate Associate * 1971 Neil Avenue ** ** Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications * 210 Baker Systems ** ** * Columbus, OH 43210 ** ** INTERNET: CRUZ@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu * ** ** BITNET: CRUZ@OHSTVMB.BITNET * Ph: (614) 292-8444 ** ** UUCP: ..!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!cruz * Fx: (614) 292-7852 ** ------------------------------ Subject: Canada Calling Date: Tue, 1 May 90 22:58:13 EDT From: woody Some items from the north: 1) I have just sent the latest NPA 709 (Newfoundland) exchange chart with place names and everything. Latest available info, and first update of this in about 8 months. 2) ALEX has officially started in Toronto. For some in the States, it is a SourceLine clone started up by Bell Canada. I have just picked up the free software package that Bell is giving out, and should be able to comment on the services a little more intelligently as time goes by. In general, there are some weird and wonderful service providers from Southam's "star" news/info line to various on-line games, message networks, university info/correspondence course (i think University of Waterloo has actual correspondence courses on-line, four of them if the ALEX docs are not mistaken). All in all, about 300 services on line, or soon to be on line. One unfortunate aspect of their service listings is that it was a bit difficult to tell which services contained the so-called "adult entertainment" or some more details on some of these things. The service level (and hence the price) was there, but it's a bit difficult at first to translate that into dollars and cents without thumbing back through the catalogue to find the rates. For those interested, the order # for ALEX (voice) is (416) 350.ALEX The ALEX service itself is on (416) 350.1234, though you will likely need to have an access code plus software that can handle the NAPLPS graphics format. ------------------------------ Subject: Calling Card Billing to Visa (not The Card) Date: Wed, 2 May 90 13:06:05 MESZ From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" Unrelated to the ongoing discussion of the The Universal Card, I have had for sometime an AT&T calling card that I got while living overseas. Its a fake number card (starts with area code 503, but the NXX is illegal), that is billed to my non-AT&T Visa card. At the time I got it, the USA DIRECT operator explained that was the ONLY billing option available, no cash billing, just MC or Visa. The question is, I had tried to get AT&T to do this earlier, while living in the States, and could never get it done. Does anyone out there know if this option is in fact available to US resident subscribers? I think its great, as the Visa card is actually a debit card, so I get no montly bill to pay, just a list of charges. (I'm into reducing the number of transactions/month I have to be involved in). -jcp- Joseph C. Pistritto (jcp@brl.mil, cgch.uucp!bpistr@chx400.switch.ch) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #306 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17013; 3 May 90 3:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05586; 3 May 90 2:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22039; 3 May 90 0:59 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 0:33:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #307 BCC: Message-ID: <9005030033.ab15247@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 00:33:09 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Jeremy Grodberg] Caller ID Boxes [Bill Berbenich] Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Tom Gray] Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [David Tamkin] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Donald E. Kimberlin] Info on PC's and Modems in the Home [Chuck Bennett] Northern Virginia Dialing Procedures [Greg Monti via John R. Covert] Nationwide Phone Directory? [Trepla Trawets] How Do I Get a 900 Number Installed Quickly? [The Blade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:19:23 PDT From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product John Higdon writes: (in response to a posting opposed to Caller-ID) >I will spare you the infinitely long list of technological offerings >in the marketplace that were originally pronounced as "unnecessary" >that are now considered to be essential. (The telephone is one.) Caller-ID is one of those products which will make itself necessary: Since now everyone will have more information about me, I'll want to have Caller-ID so that I can screen out the calls from people I don't know. Then I'll have to buy still more services, like call-blocking, so that I'm not interrupted at dinner by sales pitches, but friends can still get through. Maybe I'll even be able to buy some gizmo which will send all calls from unrecognized numbers to my answering machine. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Caller ID Boxes Date: 2 May 90 14:04:14 GMT Reply-To: Bill Berbenich Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology As promised, here is a summary of all the places that I was responded to as being suppliers of CLID boxes. It'll be easy, 'cuz I only got one reply. The lone reply was from our esteemed Moderator and I thank him. :-) Hello Direct of Santa Clara, Ca. has two AT&T boxes. One has 35 number recall, the other has 70 number recall. The phone number for Hello Direct is (800)HI-Hello - they have a lot of good telecom equipment in their catalog and will send you a free catalog for the asking. I also suspect NT has a few units, but have been unsuccessful in finding a distribution center for them which sells to the public. Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom? William A. Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 2 May 90 12:03:56 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. For the discussion on Caller ID, people should not be forced to provide their Caller ID to the parties they call. In the same manner, people should be free to automatically block calls from parties who are unwilling to give Caller ID. This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls. This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:28 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote in volume 10, issue 304: DDO> Claiming that CID invades the caller's privacy is like saying you DDO> should have the right to knock on doors wearing a mask and disguising DDO> your voice. Fooey. But you *do* have the right to knock. And the resident has a right to refuse you enty. But as the masked knocker you have no right to be surprised at such refusal. I've said before that the analogy (that answering a phone without knowing who is calling is like letting an unidentified stranger into your home) is fallacious. A telephone caller can say mean words and make you hang up in disgust. A stranger in your home can rob you, kill you, and kill anyone else present. But Mr. Danehy-Oakes carries it farther: that you don't even have a right to knock [much less be let in] if you're unwilling to identify yourself, which I suppose corresponds to saying that you don't even have a right to ring someone if you're unwilling to give your own phone number. Listen, people (yes, Herman's Hermits song from the mid-1960's), before the pro/con CLID blocking fights start afresh and Pat has to declare another moratorium, consider these: Most of the opponents of blocking are saying, "When I _receive_ a call at my _home_ I want to know who is calling." Most of the proponents of blocking are saying, "When I _place_ a call to a _business_ I don't want them to be able to add me to the telemarketing lists that they sell to other businesses, nor even to their own." There's no conflict there, readers! The people who like their bananas ripe are quarreling with the people who insist on dimpled golf balls. Can most of us agree on the following? 1. If you are dialing to someone's residence, except for such special cases as the battered women's shelter example, there is no reason to block Caller-ID nor to be surprised, should you block it, if no one answers or you get shunted to a machine. 2. If you are dialing to a business where you are an established customer and where you have previously given your telephone number for their customer recrds, _perhaps_ letting them know the number from which you are calling will help identify you faster and speed up the service. Block it if you want to, but you aren't barging into anyone's home without an invitation. 3. If you are making a cold call to a business with whom you have not dealt much before (if at all), and you don't know how they use callers' phone numbers, you have every right to block Caller-ID if you so choose. 4. If you have CLID and you receive a call where the calling number is unavailable because it is inter-LATA or because the caller's CO equipment can't provide it, it's ok to shunt the call to an answering machine for screening but not to grab the phone and start screaming at the caller for obviously being a criminal because there was no telephone number on your CLID display. 5. Calls mean customers and customers mean profits, so most businesses will answer calls where CLID is blocked. 6. CLID isn't evil as long as it can be blocked, and blocking isn't evil as long as calls where CLID is blocked can be left unanswered. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:00:00 GMT Mssrs. Goldenstein and Wolfe, each in their own way, seem to pro- liferate a misconception oeprating telephone companies want us to hold: That the capital cost of building new transmission facilities with today's technology is as heavy a burden as it has always been. Not true! In fact, the base capital cost of providing added transmission facilities has plummeted in recent years, often to factors one-tenth or less of what they were even a decade ago ... and even in unadjusted-for-inflation figures. I note some remarks about understanding the "costs for utilities," but these seem also to prolong the 1913 point of view that set the Bell interests off on what was at that time a very clever national project and development plan; one in need of massive amounts of capital. However, today, the telephone industry uniquely has benefits of technology not yet published that make it feasible to abandon an entire old plant and build a new one. That is what is being done all over the nation at this very moment. Not only the reduced investment capital cost is significant, but the improved level of reduced oper- ational overhead and maintenance cost is so great that you observe huge reductions in employment throughout the industry. This a _very_ different from the "other utilities" that do not have the benefit of such reductions. Power companies must still purchase tons of copper, place it and maintain it. We don't (to my knowledge) have plastic or fiberglass pipe for water, gas or sewage utilities. These businesses have yet to benefit from any great tehcnology breakthroughs. ..But the "phone companies?" There, some entirely new economics are at play; economics that require some new understandings and a new view from all of us, if we are not to be willing payers of prices and costs taht are not real in view of the very real and different investment costs that now apply to telephone utilities. We _all_ need to constantly examine every statement of the established "telecommunications companies" to see if we are properly seeing the figures or if we are prolonging the 1913 attitudes in a wrong way. ------------------------------ From: Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:00:00 GMT Mr. Perrine writes: >As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it >appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number. ..au contraire, Monsieur! The CCITT long ago wrote a standard for ways to express dialable numbers on every sort of public network, telephone, Telex, packet, you-name-it, even the upcoming ISDN. These exist in the appropriate CCITT Recommendations for each sort of network. There are even standardized non-verbal symbols for printing, to avoid need for the words "telephone, Telex," or such on letterheads in those "standards." By now, every American has probably at least once received a European letterhead containing these CCITT-standardized symbols and merely overlooked them. Our Bell-shaped heads of course, do not accept them as we weren't told there was any "standard" other than what Ma Bell saw fit to impress on us..including our insular, non-world-standard numbering scheme. Now that we Americans are being dragged into the larger whole world, I urge you to get hold of the appropriate CCITT Series E, F, Q and X standards and fit your planned numbering scheme into them. It will certainly give your product more acceptance in the world market; closer in the future than most Americans can appreciate. (As a hint to telephone number style, from this disadvantaged point 600 miles from my library, the CCITT actually specifies that you should print your number in two formats: national and international, because some nations do use different "internal" and "external" routing codes. If your nation's are the same for both, you still print it twice. You _do_ print the "access code" on your national version, so your "national" version for the US 1 npa nxx nnnn, using spaces for separators with no parentheses or other Bell inventions. You _do_not_ print your access code for your "external" version; rather the symbol "+" means add these digits to the other nation's access code. For North America, this is "+1" because it happens our own access code is the same as our World Region Code, which is 1. Then you follow with the routing codes and numbers, which makes the whole format +1 npa nnx nnnn, again with no parentheses or dashes. Perhaps the "confuser" for Americans is the happenstance of our access code we use only internally being the same as our World Region Code used only externally. The CCITT _does_ expect that persons who are able to dial from one nation to another should have the means to understand that each nation has different access codes. (Examples: In France, one dials 19+1 npa nnx nnnn, while in England, it is 010+1 npa nnx nnnn for the same US number. Thus, your printing in CCITT format tells each what goes after the "+," while they should know what goes before the "+.") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 May 90 16:53 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" Subject: Info on PC's and Modems in the Home? The town of Chapel Hill, NC is considering a public BBS for the desemination of public info/databases, library catalog, etc. One of the proponents and information specialists who has set up a similar system for the university posed the following question to the staff here in the university. Obviously (maybe), I would not expect any response regarding this specific locale, but possibly someone might have some numbers for the nation as a whole???? Chuck Bennett University of North Carolina --------------- Text of forwarded message ------------- Date: Tue, 01 May 90 15:38 EST From: Judy Hallman Subject: Info on PC's and modems in the home? To: support@UNCVX1 Do any of you know where I might find an estimate of how many homes have PCs and how many have modems? I am particularly interested in "our" area (how many would have access to the proposed town/county Public Information Network) but nationwide would be helpful. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 18:15:24 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-May-1990 2114" Subject: Northern Virginia Dialing Procedures (From: Greg Monti, to the Digest) One year after us Telecomers knew that area code dialing was coming to local calls in the Washington, DC, area, the letter announcing the change was finally sent to C&P subscribers in Northern Virginia last week. Local calls outside one's own area code will require ten digits (the "1" will not be necessary). The new dialing plan becomes mandatory 1 October 1990. Intra-NPA local calls will still be seven digits. Toll calls are not affected. The letter also mentions, "Calls made from Northern Virginia to Prince William County will remain the same; that is, 1 + 703 + phone number. This procedure will change in 1991." It doesn't say what the 1991 change will be but the smart money will bet that these Extended Area calls will be reduced to seven digits. They stayed at 1 + 10 digits from a previous era when these calls were toll. The 1 + 10 procedure also removes ambiguity with duplicated prefixes in the local portion of the 301 NPA which are currently dialable with seven digits. The ambiguity will disappear when the locals to 301 change to 10 digits. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 ------------------------------ From: Trepla Trawets Subject: Nationwide Phone Directory? Date: Tue, 01 May 90 12:23:16 PDT Reply-To: Trepla Trawets Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Is there any company that offers a nation-wide phone directory service that could be searched for a list of names? stewarta@sco.com or ...!uunet!sco!stewarta or @ucscc.ucsc.edu:stewarta@sco.com ------------------------------ From: The Blade Date: Tue, 01 May 90 15:21:05 PDT Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM Subject: How Do I Get a 900 Number Installed Quickly? I've been inquiring about setting up a 900 number lately, and the best installation time I could get was 30 to 60 days via Sprint. AT&T was around 45 to 90 days. Does anyone know a way (not using a company that is a '900 dealer') do get a 900 set up under 3 weeks? Blade [Moderator's Note: That is the purpose of a '900 dealer'. Some of them can have you set up and operating within a day or less provided you are willing to have the 900 number ring in on an existing line already in place. You get the service you pay for, and some of the brokers are very expensive. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #307 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18762; 3 May 90 4:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25024; 3 May 90 3:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05586; 3 May 90 2:03 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 1:21:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #308 BCC: Message-ID: <9005030121.ab02507@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 01:20:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 308 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [John Higdon] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [D DanehyOakes] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [B. Ellsworth] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [David Tamkin] Re: Irish Phone Service [Colum Mylod] Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Lars Poulsen] Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Marvin Sirbu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Date: 2 May 90 11:09:39 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon "Paul S. Sawyer" writes: > This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain > whose policy is NO TELEPHONES! As a customer who has had to twiddle my thumbs waiting for a clerk to get off the phone, I would say "right on". However, there is a social consciousness aspect to this as well. Isn't it a little more cost effective (as well as energy-efficient) to let your fingers do the walking rather than drive all over trying to find a particular item at a particular price? Perhaps community-minded merchants might figure out a way to handle both telephone and walk-in customers. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dan'l DanehyOakes Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Date: 2 May 90 18:20:51 GMT Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lord. . . Haven't any of you people ever heard of the YELLOW PAGES? Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [A Note From the Lord Thy Moderator: If you read the first message in this thread, you should have noticed the author's belief that the telephone company deliberatly confused the user of the white pages by failing to list businesses under their brand names in order to force the business to purchase more Yellow Pages advertising. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:39:52 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? > ... Have you ever been at a checkout, with > one or two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat > for five minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets > in every store in a ten mile radius? ... A very close relative of mine once waited several times for such calls each lasting several minutes during a wait in a particularly long line at a hardware store. When his turn at the checkout stand came up, the phone rang. Before the clerk could get it, my relative grabbed the phone and answered it approximately "We're too @#$%& busy right now to talk on the phone!!" and hung up. The clerk was aghast, but my relative got through the checkout without further delay. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:30 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Scott Fybush wrote in volume 10, issue 304: SF> Also, I am reasonably certain that Rochester Tel will not allow pay SF> phones to be listed as business lines. In metropolitan Chicago many service stations do include the payphone in their directory listings. Paul Sawyer wrote later in the same issue: PS> This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain whose PS> policy is NO TELEPHONES! Have you ever been at a checkout, with one or PS> two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat for five PS> minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets in every PS> store in a ten mile radius? Mr. Aubuchon decided years ago that the PS> store personnel had a responsibility to give their full attention to the PS> customer in the store. Whereas I fully agree that the customer who has come to the store deserves priority, having no way for potential customers to call is gross, coarse overkill! So the stores have no listed telephone numbers at all? A far more sensible solution is either (1) for different personnel from those serving the customers who are present in the store to answer the telephones or (2) to ask a telephoning customer to hold until someone is available and to offer to take the caller's number and call back when there is a lull if the caller does not wish to hold. In fact, the latter alternative could be automated: if a line is not answered in, say, five rings, a recording apologizes that all personnel are busy with customers and instructs the caller to hold until someone can answer or to dial 1 at any time to leave a message. A glowing light on the telephone indicates to the staff that a caller is holding. If the caller does not wish to hold any longer, dialing 1 will connect the caller to a device that will accept a voice message; during slacker hours in the store, clerks can return calls, or clerks can be scheduled to leave the floor and return calls at specific times. If there are not enough waiting messages, the clerk returns to the floor early; if there are too many, unreturned calls can wait or the clerk can clear the queue, as the shift supervisor deems appropriate based on the in-person traffic. Of course, if the floor is too busy to spare a clerk, returning the messages just has to wait: customers who come in person get priority. Now, Aubuchon Hardware has no locations in my part of the country, so I've never seen it for myself. If Mr. Sawyer means that there are "NO TELEPHONES!" in the retailing area but personnel other than sales clerks and cashiers can answer incoming calls without imposing on customers who are in the store, then I heartily agree with the policy. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service Date: 2 May 90 17:37:18 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands In article <6938@accuvax.nwu.edu> K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham. ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: [intro deleted] >Telecom Eireann's >[...] latest change seems to have been introduced at the beginning of >April 1990 by the looks of the newspaper advertisements. It is an 800 >style freephone service and they use the number 1-800-6D (6 digits). >The choice of 1-800, as in the States, is odd as Ireland uses the >British (European?) style of using 0 as an exchange access code; 0800 >would have been the expected code. Indeed it is an odd code. Like most of the world, 0 is the trunk access code. Most PTTs use a trunk code lookalike for their freephone numbers, but exceptions do exist: 11-5D(?) in Belgium, 167+5D in Italy. Not 100% sure about the number of digits. However the use of 0800 might have lead to confusion (and a high incidence of wrong-dialled calls) with the British Telecom freephone -- remember many British magazines and newspapers are sold in Ireland. In my tender youth 18-3D was used in some automatic areas to call nearby manual-exchange operators (now extinct in Ireland). As DTMF is rare, it would have been better to have the freefone code 18-6D (save 20 pulses). >Maybe they use 1 as the initial digit as all other numbers beginning >with 1 are operator services and are free, except for 16 which is the >international access code (there's always an exception). And 2 more exceptions are time on 1191 and weather on 1199 -- both are local charges. >Last summer Ireland's telephone company Telecom Eireann, introduced a >03000-5D (oh three thousand) service. The 5D seems to be split 2D-3D >for provider-service numbers. This is a value added service [...] >the Irish don't seem to have any of the sex lines and are mainly >using the service for sport results at the moment. Sex lines are "Not Approved" if I remember rightly. Major revenue lost in that case! Busiest 03000 service is "Dial-a-Prayer" ! (Possibly needed when the bill comes in!) >Both 03 and 08 are normally used as quick access codes to the UK >(excluding Northern Ireland) and Northern Ireland phone systems >respectively from the Republic of Ireland. Ah! At last! A simple explaination of 08- and 03-. Unfortunately it is not possible to dial British numbers using 16-44-area code-number like it is from Ireland to the rest of the world. This means that you have some thinking to do before chosing one of those 03/08 codes. The logic is as follows: Given a British number +44-area code-number: - is it Belfast (+44-232 and a few outlying special cases): dial 084-number. (i.e. area code ignored) - is it in N.Ireland outside Belfast, dial 080-area code-number. (check big directory if you don't know if area code is in N.Irl) - is it (post May 6 London split allowed for) +44-21,+44-31,+44-41,+44-51, +44-61,(but NOT +44-71, +44-81, +44-91) then dial 03-[2|3|4|5|6]-number - else dial 030-area code-number. Dial 08 where 03 should be used, or vice versa, and the system goes do-da-de. Clear? It isn't for a lot of people. If Bournemouth (+44-202) becomes 030202, why does 03021 not work for Birmingham (+44-21) to make life easier? Remember there's no easy way to recognise a N.Irl area code distinct from an English/ Scottish/Welsh/IOM/Channel Islands one. The important difference between 08- and 03- is cost: N. Irl is much cheaper. But I'd have liked it if TE did the logic to cost the call for me rather than me having to check directories and guess codes. >The final change I have noticed, which also seems to have only >occurred recently, is that Dublin (area code 01) is starting to move >to 7D subscriber numbers. The only 7D numbers currently in use seem to >be on the 679 exchange... Strictly speaking the _area code_ for Dublin is 1, the STD (subscriber trunk dial) code is 01. Some people find it heartbreaking having to drop that leading zero dialing in from another country! Since April all numbers beginning with 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 70 and 79 must prepend a `6' to make them 7D. The 2x are not in the centre of Dublin. No warning is given if you dial an old 6D from Holland to Dublin -- just the old reliable do-da-de tone is given. The remaining numbers will go seven digit over the next 4 years (source TE ad.) This number changing is an on-going scenario: Cork and Limerick have been moving to 6 digits over the last 6 years. Almost everybody else has 5D numbers, except some funny 3D ones. Numbers in some parts of Dublin have regularly being changing, especially south city as new exchanges have been brought into use: they retire old exchanges in many cases by moving people to new numbers. >I notice that someone from Ireland contributes to the Digest every now >and then, maybe the can inform us (or me) of the change to 7D in >Dublin. Stand up and be counted! I would like to know. According to the ad I've seen, you can ask Telecom Eireann via their freefone on 1800-202020. BUT we abroad can't call that number! Just like +1-800 to USA doesn't work. Pity. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Wed, 2 May 90 06:23:54 GMT In article <6889@accuvax.nwu.edu> our moderator Patrick writes: >Okay, here is aqpproximatly what happened when a call was placed in >the era prior to automatic dialing: When I was a boy (my two year old says she likes the stories best that begin with those words) I lived on a farm in Denmark. Telephones there were a lot like here, except that the urban ares were a bit behind here, and the rural areas were not quie as backwards. My parents' farm was in a rural service area belonging to the Copenhagen Telphone Corporation (KTAS), our number was (still is, in a way) Allindelille 110. The Allindelille exchange had about 300 subscribers, in an area about 5 miles from the excahnge, which was housed in the residence of the operator. I think the company owned the house. When you wanted to place a call, you'd turn the crank, and then lift the receiver and wait for the operator to come online and announce "Allindelille", and you'd say the number you wanted, or - for a long distance call - what exchange and number. And everything would work pretty much as Patrick describes. Around 1958 the procedure was changed, and we'd do our own long distance routing. When the operator came on, we'd say "Frederikshavn" or whatever city, and they'd give you the next hop; the operator there would come online and say "Ringsted" and you'd say "Frederikshavn" again, until you got to Frederikshavn and you'd tell the operator there the number. To disconnect, you would just hang up. In 1960 they decided to go all-automatic, rural areas and all, and they started out by installing an all-new underground cable plant to replace the overhead wires. When that was all in place, they went around and installed phone jacks at everybody's house to replace the screw terminal hookups, and changed at the same time from battery at the subscriber location to CO batteries. Finally, they went around and handed out the new Ericsson dial phones, and the number became "(03) 60 01 10". I think the cutover was in 1961 or 1962. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Reply-To: jimmy@denwa.info.com Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Date: 3 May 90 13:36:43 JST (Thu) In article <6889@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >To reach Hollywood, we want to go west :) ... the operator would plug >into the line to St. Louis ... after a few seconds, St. Louis would >answer, and our long distance operator would ask for Denver. St. >Louis would connect to Denver, and when that operator answered, our >operator would ask to be connected to Salt Lake City ... When Salt >Lake City answered, she would ask for Los Angeles .... and when that >operator answered, she would ask for Hollywood 2300. What was the sound quality like on a connection like that? As bad as Metrofone? There must have been some loss at each cross-connection along the way. [Moderator's Note: All phone connections in those days were very tinny sounding. Long distance calls were frequently very faint and distant. PT] >So your connection went through to MGM, But MGM is (and was) in Culver City, quite a ways from Hollywood (OK, I'm being picky). Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan or or Fax: (011)+81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-222-8429 [Moderator's Note: Yes, you are being very picky. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 12:22:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant Patrick argues that after the outside plant is amortized, the continuing revenue is "pure profit". Under Rate of Return regulation, the LECs are allowed to earn an authorized percentage (12-16%) on investment NET OF DEPRECIATION. Once the plant has been fully depreciated, they are no longer entitled to earn any return on it, and telephone rates are adjusted downward accordingly. (In practice, of course, investement in new plant is pickedto provide additional services -- e.g. SPC switching--allows the phone companies to avoid reducing the rates. Larry's original message assumed the additional $702 per subscriber investment would have to be paid for by the specific subscribers served. For the larger carriers at least, the PUCs support rate averaging, and the additional cost is picked up in part by ratepayers in low cost areas. For independents serving only high cost areas, there is a Universal Service Fund supported by contributions from interstate long distance call revenues which helps keep the costs down. Some states have intrastate versions of the USF as well. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #308 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20797; 3 May 90 5:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08338; 3 May 90 4:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25024; 3 May 90 3:08 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 2:30:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #309 BCC: Message-ID: <9005030230.ab13182@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 02:30:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 309 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SprintMail & the Internet [Peter J. Dotzauer] Re: SprintMail & the Internet [Steve Elias] Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [olsen@athena.mit.edu] Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [David Tamkin] Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [portal!cup.portal.com!mmm] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Roni Plachta] Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos [David Tamkin] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Fred E.J. Linton] Directory Assistance Oddity [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: The Card, TDD Style [Curtis E. Reid] Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests [CharlieShub] Eastern Montgomery County Unused Prefixes [Carl Moore] NC and GA Dialing [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" Subject: Re: SprintMail & the Internet Date: 3 May 90 03:18:41 GMT Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC In article <7085@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: >A single sentence in an unrelated article in this week's issue of ..... >Telemail) is now providing a connection with the Internet. No details >were given on the addressing procedure from either end. The Commercial Mail Relay service provides (at least provideD) mail relay functions between the Internet and Telemail. More information from Intermail-request@isi.edu or from Chloe Holg (holg@isi.edu). Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cartography & GIS, Dept. of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH TEL (614) 292-1357 FAX (614) 292-6213 FIDO 1:226/330 BITNET pjd@ohstvmb UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd INTERNET dotzauer@osu.edu or pjd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu [128.146.1.5] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: SprintMail & Internet Date: Tue, 01 May 90 09:57:35 -0400 From: Steve Elias Sure enough, there is a link now between Telemail and the Internet. One complication is that you must know the "organization name" as well as the username of the Telemail person you are writing to. I have instructions online somewhere about how to mail to Telemail. If you send me email, I'll dig them up and send them to you. The basic addressing format is like so: "[J.DOE/ORGANIZATION]TM22/USA%TELEMAIL"@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU Is that a strange email address or what? I'm not sure about that TM22 thingy -- that might vary according to destination as well. ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ------------------------------ From: olsen@athena.mit.edu Date: Wed, 2 May 90 11:57:29 -0400 Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology >Did anyone else get a new Telecom*USA Calling Card in the mail this >past week besides myself? I've been using mine for over a month now. It is a nice card. The price structure is very simple: ATT direct-dial rates + 30 cent surcharge For 800-number access, that's a pretty good deal. I even used it to outwit the nasty COCOT's in the West Palm Beach airport! [About which expect an update shortly.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:26 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards Mark Robert Smith asked in Volume 10, Issue 305: | Can anybody get one of these Telecom*USA cards? It sounds like I | might want to. Is there a number to call? I just checked with Telecom*USA about that. They do offer the calling card, with all the features il Moderatore mentioned, to anyone with a billing address in the United States, even in the areas where they do not yet offer 1+ or 10XXX service. You can call their marketing division at 1-800-728-8888 to start an account. The customer service number is 1-800-728-7000. I'd received one two or three weeks before, perhaps because I am a 1+ customer of theirs. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution Date: Tue, 1-May-90 22:00:12 PDT I have an even simpler solution. Let DeArmond send the alleged "micropower" relay to someone trustable for verification. If it exists, DeArmond was telling the truth and Lippman is a liar. Otherwise, vice versa. (It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA. D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude less. A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender. LL seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond reality.) ------------------------------ From: Roni Plachta Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: 2 May 90 17:39:20 GMT Reply-To: Roni Plachta Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara I would like if someone ever had the experiance to connect between two PC's ACROSS the GLOBE (using two identical american made 1200 bps modems and direct phone lines between ISARAEL and the US). I have tried it! Calling from the US to the other PC (on host mode) is a smooth operation. The modems handshake and data transfer is possible (I use a script file through the KERMIT program). I can upload and download files with automaticly if the file names are agreed upon, even in non ASCII or binary. When the call comes from outside the US and my PC is at host mode I wasn't able to get the modems to handshake. Is there any one out there who knows WHY and what can be done so they will? Please send responds to: RONI@SQUID.UCSB.EDU Thanks, RONI P. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 22:16 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos John Levine wrote in volume 10, issue 300: | MCI said that they couldn't [put multiple originating phone numbers on | the same long-distance account to share one minimum and to be figured | together for volume discounts], since Massachusetts and New Jersey are | in different billing regions, MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and mine, which are in bordering rate centers in the same city, onto the same account because they were not at the same address. | When AT&T starts sending out their own bills, I'll look at them again. In 1988 a US Sprint customer service representative told me that come January 1, 1989, AT&T would have to do its own billing, and that employees of the competitors were waiting to see AT&T fall on its face. Yet sixteen months later it still hasn't come to pass. There is one way to get separate billing from AT&T: coax a Universal Card out of them. There's a 72c surcharge but a 10% discount on every call you make with it. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Re dialing "letters" with a modem: I briefly owned several 2400 baud plain vanilla external modems on a trial basis (a Spartan, a newish Zoom, and a Best, all of which were returned to their vendors as somehow defective), one of which was organised to translate dial-string letters to the corresponding numerals. For example, ATDP SPRINGS pulse-dialed 777 4647, which, whoever it was requested such data please take note, is the SNET Co.'s area 203 time-of-day line. (BTW, "somehow defective" means: the Spartan couldn't CONNECT at 300; the Zoom couldn't reliable detect NO CARRIER after a session, and had to be told +++ ATH to force a disconnect; the Best detected RING every time I pulse-dialed a digit (yes, I have a rotary line) and would thus autoanswer before I had even finished dialing my outbound voice calls! So much for $100 modems.) Prof. F.E.J. Linton FLinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU fejlinton@mcimail.com Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. FLinton@WESLEYAN.bitnet attmail!fejlinton Middletown, CT 06457 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w) 1 203 776 2210 (h) ------------------------------ Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Directory Assistance Oddity Needed DA in area 603 last Thursday. Dialed 1 603 555 1212, 7:03 pm EDT. Operator told me: sorry, our database computer is down, for the past 20 minutes, call back in half an hour. Thanked her, hung up, dialed 10288 1 603 555 1212, 7:05 pm EDT. Operator (completely different voice) gave me the number I was after without a moment's hesitation. My dial-1 carrier is MCI, so now I wonder: could MCI be running their own DA service in 603 these days? And was that in fact down on 1990.04.26, while AT&T's was OK? Prof. F.E.J. Linton FLinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU fejlinton@mcimail.com Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. FLinton@WESLEYAN.bitnet attmail!fejlinton Middletown, CT 06457 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w) 1 203 776 2210 (h) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 12:12 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Re: The Card, TDD Style >From: Ken Harrenstien >found that buried near the end was a TDD number for customer service >(800/367-8997), and called that just to check it out. Thanks for posting it. That was a valuable information!! Pat, thanks for posting this even though you said you don't want any more articles on Universal Card. I would have never gotten this information from other means. Actually, ATT Universal was surprised that the number was distributed in an "electronic digest" even though it is only about 3 weeks old! >At first I got an auto-answer TDD announcement asking callers to leave >a message. However, when I started typing what was to be a grumble >about their "service guarantee", I was interrupted by a live person. I got the same thing. They did call back in less than 5 minutes! I think all of their TDDs are set up excatly that way. >In the middle of our conversation we were cut off (gee, and I could >have sworn I was using AT&T...) and my attempts to call back were met First, I was put on hold ... I got disconnected (however, I did not get the dial tone back -- just a dead line). The representative tried to reach me but my phone was busy because I thought I was on hold. She apologized for this problem but did not offer any explanation. >So I'd rate their service as promising ... not perfect, but they seem >to be trying. They did misspell my name on the first card, but I They couldn't locate my filled-out application which I returned by mail in their computer system. They said that the application processing may actually take 3 weeks due to high volume. I hope that when I call next week my application would be entered. >Aside from that, it looks like a GREAT deal, especially for someone >like myself who has a completely null credit history (long story). I It's nice to know some VISA banks offer TDD services. As far as I know only Citibank, ATT Universal, and CoreStates offer TDD services. I hope that ATT Universal will iron out these "knicks" (i.e. disconnects) soon. >Anyway, I'm very happy to have it and am very, very glad that I saw >the original news release in TELECOM, courtesy of Don H. Kemp! I'm glad I read your article! After I read it, I immediately called them! And here I am reporting the results. Curtis Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet CER2520%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) CER2520@vaxd.isc.rit.edu (Not Reliable-NYSernet) ------------------------------ From: Charlie Shub Subject: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests Date: Tue, 1 May 90 1:14:49 CDT [Moderator's Note: This is part of a recent discourse in misc.consumers between myself and others. Someone had written about being converted to MCI service without their knowledge. He said he did not plan to pay for the calls; I said he had to pay for the calls, but not the swithch-over fee. The message below defends marketing practices by the OCC's, and explains how it is done. PT] > In article <1990Apr28.023902.1763@chinet.chi.il.us> you write: > [ among other things ] >You can write a nasty letter to MCI about their marketing practices; >you can write a complaint (formal or informal) to the FCC; you can >sue MCI for the 'inconvenience of dialing 10ATT' a dozen or so times >in the five days interim, but you CAN NOT lawfully refuse to pay the tarriffed charges of >the long distance carrier. >I might add that AT&T has accidentally done the same thing to subscribers, >although not with the frequency of MCI, who I am sure would likewise claim >it was merely an accident. Patrick, I can't let this pass. Feel free to post this to telecom if you feel it is relevant. My wife spent about 3 1/2 months working for Pioneer TeleTechnologies, a company that solicits conversions to MCI. I thus have good knowledge of their procedures. Contact is made by a sales person (like my wife) and if the client agrees to change over, there is a verification step performed before any changeover is ordered. Specifically, the verification section calls the client and assures the client really did understand the change and really did agree to it. Only after that step occurs is the change order sent in. The verification folk do not get bonuses for verifying, and the sales people do not get credit until after verification has verified the sale. I thus tend to view with some skepticism the claims made by some posters. charlie shub cdash@boulder.Colorado.EDU -or- ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!cdash or even cdash@colospgs (BITNET) -or- (719) 593-3492 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 23:03:29 EDT From: MOORE <00860@vax1.udel.edu> Reply-to: Carl Moore Subject: Eastern Montgomery County Unused Prefixes Updating via Feb. 1990 Eastern Montgomery County call guide, here are unused NNX that I currently find in area 215 (southeast Pa.): 220 239-240 260 292 325 392-394 396-397 420-421 428-429 442 450-451 454 460 470 475 478-479 490 529-530 550 571 573 575 594 599 633 651-652 654-656 658 669 680 695 730-731 733 738 761-762 764 771-774 792 798 832 840 850 859 880 882-883 888 954-955 958-960 984 989-990 992 994-996 998-999 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:52:19 EDT From: MOORE <00860@vax1.udel.edu> Reply-to: cmoore@brl.mil Subject: NC and GA Dialing I thought I'd look up dialing instructions previously discussed in this Digest. The January, 1990-91 call guide for Savannah, Ga., on page 13, explains that there is telephone number shortage in 404 area, and that all long-distance calls from that area now require area code. And it ALSO says: "Customers making calls within the 912 area code may also use the 912 area code when dialing, although it is not required." Huh? Feb. 1990 Raleigh (N.C.) call guide, on page 7, refers to shortage of telephone numbers in N.C. It says you now need 1+704+7D or 1+919+7D for direct dialing (and 0+704+7D or 0+919+7D for 0+) within NC, but does not specify what area it is to originate from. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #309 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13656; 4 May 90 1:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15640; 3 May 90 23:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28840; 3 May 90 22:21 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 22:00:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #310 BCC: Message-ID: <9005032200.ab29753@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 22:00:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 310 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Left Town [David Lesher] MCI Around Town Surcharges [George S. Thurman] MCI Card Charges [Andrew Hastings] Foncard to USSR: Why not? [Mark Wilkins] Fax Directories [Nigel Allen] A So-called "Prize" Notification [Carl Moore] CCITT Standards, &c. [Jerry B. Altzman] Public Loops (was TT Freqs) [John Parsons] Basic 2nd Phone Line Question [Graham Murphy] DID and Distinctive Ringing [Chris Elmquist] Area Code 905/706 [Ken Jongsma] Toll-free Calls in Various Countries [Mark Brader] What is 660 at New York Tel? [Laurence R. Brothers] Calling Collect / DID Telecom Boneheadisms [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: MCI Left Town Date: Thu, 3 May 90 19:52:39 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Without ANY written notice, MCI has (in effect) abolished "Around Town". This was/is a feature that made 950-1022 calls from your local area (I never could find out how THIS was defined ;-[) the same price as 10222 calls. As of 1 May, such calls have a $0.25 surcharge. While far less steep than Sprint's or ATT's, it still hurts. I consider it especially sneaky that they provided NO notice. The supervisor I talked to agreed to refund the charges I have already incurred. Grrrrrrr. A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 15:30 EST From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Around Town Surcharges This is only to inform the members in this group who are MCI Long Distance costomers, that starting MAY 1, 1990, a .25 Cent surcharge will be applied to all calls placed with a MCI Telephone Credit Card if the call is placed from the subscribers local (billing address) area. Previously, as we all know, there was no surcharge. I think it is very S----Y that MCI would do this without informing the customers. I will start using my ALLNET account ... they do not have a "local Surcharge". ------------------------------ From: Andrew.Hastings@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu.edu Subject: MCI Card Charges Date: 3 May 90 19:20:58 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI I signed up for the MCI "Call Europe" plan at the end of March. Yesterday, I got the first bill (from Bell of PA) which includes calls made under the plan. One curiosity is that the itemized listing of eligible calls includes the usual number, time-of-day, and duration, but a charge of $0.00! The summary at the end of the MCI section of the bill includes an item charge for "additional minutes" which covers the cost of the calls. In any case, I was surprised to find a call to Europe I made with my MCI card (in my "Around Town" area) charged at the normal rates, not the "Call Europe" rates. I called MCI to inquire (800-444-3333) and discovered that "Call Europe" rates only apply to calls made from my home phone. The MCI person also said that MCI has instituted a surcharge of $0.25 for "Around Town" calls effective 5/1/90. She said that they are notifying customers who call MCI. I don't like surprises like this. Andy Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 [Moderator's Note: David, George and Andrew -- Welcome to the wonderful, whacky world of MCI-isms. What you have experienced is nothing new: MCI was pulling stunts like that fifteen years ago in the early days of the Execunet program. Rate changing at will; notice to no one until the bill came and you see the charges there, etc. Heck, if they don't tell you when they snatch your dial one plus business, why should they bother with something minor like an extra two-bits every time you use their credit card? You boys had better learn one thing now: These are not the good old days where everytime Ma wanted to make a slight change she had to file a thousand page tariff in quintuplicate with the FCC and fifty state agencies. The rule of thumb now is the public be damned! Right, Mr. McGowan? PT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Wilkins Subject: Foncard to USSR: Why Not? Date: 2 May 90 06:29:08 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 Why is it that one can dial the USSR direct, without operator assistance, on Sprint, but one cannot use a Foncard? Is there some fundamental difference in the switching mechanism used or is it a business decision? Mark Wilkins ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org Date: Tue, 1 May 90 8:50:00 EST Subject: Fax Directories Anyone with a telex machine usually receives one or more mailings a year from publishers of "unofficial" telex directories. By "unofficial", I mean one that does not get its listing information directly from the telex administration (such as Western Union or the international telex companies in the U.S., or CNCP Telecommunications and some small regional companies in Canada). Instead, they copy the information from an authorized directory. The solicitations often closely resemble invoices, and I'm sure some of these pseudo-invoices get paid purely by accident. The "unofficial" directory publishers are presumably acting within the law (the pseduo-invoices admit to not being invoices), but they're sleazy. A relatively new development is the fax directory. Some companies that publish fax directories are entirely legitimate; others are crooks. I think that the New Brunswick Telephone Company Ltd. (NBTel) in Canada is the only telephone company that has a separate section in its telephone directory for fax numbers, and as far as I know no U.S. regional holding company has gotten into the fax directory market. This means that publishers of fax directories have to compile their listings from sources other than telephone company records. They do this by distributing questionnaires that often double as order forms through fax machine dealers, office-management magazines and trade shows, through telephone contacts, and perhaps through going through trade magazines and membership lists which include fax numbers in listings or advertisements. In Canada, there appear to be two viable fax directory companies, both under the same ownership. Dialadex Communications publishes a free Canada-only fax directory (one copy to every company listed in it; additional copies are about $40 Canadian). This directory, Business Connexions, evolved out of the telex directory that Dialadex publishes unnder contract with CNCP Telecommunications, and also lists subscribers to CNCP's Telex and Dialcom services. Fax Directory Inc. publishes the "Official Fax Directory" which lists both Canadian and U.S. numbers, and costs about $100 Canadian. Two other apparently legitimate Canadian fax directory publishers have dropped out of sight, or at least don't answer my letters. FaxList published one free, rather slim directory. Dial-A-Fax, originally based in Montreal, moved to Florida and then to Pennsylvania. The Montreal telephone directory lists two other fax directory publishers, but neither number works. In the U.S., there is a Los Angeles company listed as "Fax Directory" (at least the L.A. directory assistance operator provided me with a number when I asked for "Fax Directory"). I left a message on the company's answering machine, but never got an answer back. When I called a Philadelphia-area company listed as "Fax Directory", I got a rude man who refused to send me any information on his directory, and who seemed convinced that I wanted to publish a directory myself. A less-than-honest individual using aggressive sales tactics could certainly make a substantial amount of money selling over-priced advertising in a fax directory. You may want to warn your accounts payable staff to be extremely careful in dealing with invoices for directory advertising of all kinds. Some companies may find it to their advantage to be listed in fax directories, particularly if they sell to other companies, and want to be accessible to purchasing agents. However, being listed in a fax directory guarantees you that you will get some "junk fax" messages, particularly if you are in a community where the telephone company does not charge for local calls. I would like to compile a list of U.S. fax directories. If you know of one, please send me its address, phone number, fax number, and I will summarize. Value judgments about the company will also be appreciated. Nigel David Allen voice telephone (416) 535-8916 52 Manchester Avenue fax (416) 978-7552 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1:250/438) MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen [Moderator's Note: Some *legit* directory publishers catch these crooks with copyright violations if nothing else by inserting 'ringers' in the directory -- that is, deliberatly false listings that no one could ever create unless they were simply copying the book. Illinois Bell does this, as does Western Union, to name two. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 17:26:32 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: A So-called "Prize" Notification I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code. This is a "prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called"). The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message. (I don't know how it picked my office telephone number.) ------------------------------ From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: CCITT Standards, &c. Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Wed, 2 May 90 07:16:12 GMT With all the talk about international dialing and non-ambiguity, someone brought up the catchy phrase "CCITT standards" Could someone enlighten me (via Email, please) whence these marvelous items are available? Thanks! //jbaltz jerry b. altzman "On USENET, no one can hear you scream" 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 11:44:12 mdt From: John Parsons Subject: Public Loops (was TT Freqs) Speaking of telecom.nostalgia, Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | writes: > Years ago you could call up a DA operator and hit the 'D' key > when she picked up. This dropped you into limbo and you would > hear some soft white noise ..... This was first thought to be > The Way to be able to talk to other people without giving them > your phone number, ie "Meet me on the 312 DA loop". Reminds me of a GTE exchange in Redondo Beach, CA (213 area) in the early 1970's. From anywhere, dialing 4 digits, 5455 or 5465 or something (my memory's fading, and I only tried it once or twice, honest!), would connect you to some sort of loop. It had a fair amount of noise and audio levels varied greatly, but you could hear lots of people yakking at each other. I don't know how long it existed, but apparently many people knew about it. Any of them on the net now? Are/were similar situations common? John Parsons johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Graham Murphy Subject: Basic 2nd Phone Line Question Date: 3 May 90 00:10:18 GMT Organization: High Alititude Observatory/NCAR, Boulder CO In Australia, the 3rd and 4th lines of a standard 4-line residential telephone cable are used for an extension bell and, more importantly, avoiding bell ringing during pulse dialing. I am planning on installing a second telephone line in my house here in Denver and I was wondering ... Do I need to install a second 4-line cable in the house or can I instead use the 3rd and 4th lines as neither Australian consideration is relevant? If I must install a second cable, what are the uses of the 3rd and 4th lines in the US telephone system? Any advice would be appreciated. Graham Murphy High Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research P.O. Box 3000, Boulder CO 80307-3000. Ph:(303)497-1565; Fax:(303)497-1137. INTERNET: murphy@hao.UCAR.EDU; Solar PO: gmurphy@solar.STANFORD.EDU ------------------------------ From: Chris Elmquist Subject: DID and Distinctive Ringing Date: 3 May 90 02:32:29 GMT Where can the average telco end-user get technical information on how DID and Distinctive Ringing work? Specifically, I'd like to know if there is a standard for the ringing patterns used for Distinctive Ringing (and how many patterns exist). For DID, I'd like to know how the called number information is passed to the 'callee'. I saw some other disussions on here about DID (analog vs. digital, tone/pulse, etc)... These are things I'd like to find out. My local U.S. West rep. was completely dumbfounded when I called asking about these services. I was transfered seven levels deep only to find that "someone would try to call me back tomorrow." I'm guessing I have called the wrong people ... but then, I don't know *who* I should be calling for this information. Thanks. elmquist@nachos.ssesco.com ------------------------------ Subject: Area Codes 905/706 Date: Thu, 3 May 90 8:27:31 EDT From: Ken Jongsma A small blurb in this week's issue of [Business Week] mentions that Area Codes 905 and 706 will be "reclaimed" from Mexico starting next February. They also mentioned that (as previously mentioned here) New York has been promised 917. Ken ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Toll-free calls in various countries Date: Thu, 3 May 1990 15:08:11 -0400 I'm told that New Zealand, like Britain and unlike Australia, uses 0800 for toll-free, but they only introduced it recently. Until then they only had "Freefone" numbers, which you had to ask the operator for; this is again British style. (It is of course the same thing as the North American "Zenith" or "Enterprise" numbers.) Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com C unions never strike! ------------------------------ From: "Laurence R. Brothers" Subject: What is 660 at New York Tel? Date: 3 May 90 20:58:37 GMT Reply-To: "Laurence R. Brothers" I suppose I could call someone at NY Tel. and ask but ... Does anyone know offhand what system you connect to when you dial 660 at NY Tel? Laurence R. Brothers (quasar@bellcore.com) Bellcore -- Computer Technology Transfer -- Knowledge-Based Systems "We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed." ------------------------------ Subject: Calling Collect / DID Telcom Boneheadisms Date: Thu, 03 May 90 09:36:22 -0400 From: Steve Elias A previous posting axed if it was possible to call a 900 number collect. I doubt it, but it sure would be nice! Another question: What if one recorded the greeting of their DID voice mail to be "blah blah blah I accept all charges", and then called the DID number collect? Would that call be billed as a collect call on the trunk owner's DID phone bill? (I haven't seen a DID phone bill in years, so I don't know if that's possible.) By the way, NE Tel finally got their stuff together and hooked up my DID line properly. ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) [Moderator's Note: Since the operator placing the collect call would have no way of knowing the called line was a DID trunk, she would write it up to that number. It would go to whoever owned the line(s). PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #310 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16301; 4 May 90 2:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23655; 4 May 90 0:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15640; 3 May 90 23:27 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 22:50:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #311 BCC: Message-ID: <9005032250.ab20705@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 22:50:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 311 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Magazines and Newsletters - A Bibliography [David Leibold] Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory [Nigel Allen] Cellular Reading [Pete Ferris] What Voice Mail System is Best? [Harrison Spain] Baltimore & Washington Pseudo-Foreign [Carl Moore] Free Unlisted Numbers [Eric Hughes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telecom Magazines and Newsletters - A Bibliography [David Leibold] Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:48:11 EDT From: woody Telecom Magazine and Newsletters The following magazines are available for those interested in telephones and telecommunications. Some of these free offers are restricted to telephone professionals; but others are simply free for the asking. Some of the 800 numbers listed may be restricted in certain regions (eg. Canada-only, U.S.-only, etc). Note that information listed here is subject to change; any changes or corrections to the list would be appreciated via djcl@contact.uucp or TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom). Thanks to Nigel Allen of 89:480/501, Sir Dep, Will Martin and William Degnan and John Boteler for supplying many of the addresses and publication names that you'll see below ... apologies if anyone has been missed out in the credits. ---------------- Bell (Canada) News Bell News is a publication printed out by Bell Canada Public Affairs, Ontario Region. Copies of this biweekly may be found in some places in the Bell Canada Trinity Square tower, adjacent to and west of the Eaton Centre in Toronto. Look for boxes that say 'Bell News', either in the mall or near the Bell public office. ---------------- Communications Communications, The magazine of mobile radio professionals Cardiff Publishing Company 6300 S. Syracuse Way Ste. 650 Englewood, CO 80111 303 220-0600 ---------------- Communications News Communications News Circulation 1 East First Street Duluth, MN 55802 Editorial Offices 7500 Old Oak Blvd Cleveland, OH 44120 ---------------- CommunicationsWeek CommunicationsWeek is a weekly tabloid newspaper for the telecommunications industry. It's free. If you'd like a subscription, just write to: CommunicationsWeek, Circulation Department, P.O. Box 2070, Manhasset, N.Y. 11030 U.S.A. ---------------- Datamation Subscriptions to Datamation, a U.S. computer magazine, are available free by writing to: Datamation P.O. Box 17162 Denver, Colorado 80217 U.S.A. This offer is not available to students. ---------------- Directories Here are the addresses of two directories you or your company can be listed in free. Write to them or phone them (not me) to request a questionnaire, then fill it out and return it. The directories themselves can be consulted at most public and college libraries. Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory phone (301) 871-5280 or write to: Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory Editorial Services Limited P.O. Box 6789 Silver Spring, Maryland 20906 Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory telephone (313) 961-2242 or write to: Editor, Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Gale Research Inc. Book Tower Detroit, Michigan 48226 ---------------- Inbound/Outbound (plus Teleconnect) Inbound/Outbound is a freebie magazine subscription that certain people can receive. These certain people are telemarketers, telephone-type people, sellers/distributors of phone equipment, especially for marketers. The magazine deals with the business of telemarketing, and has features on automatic call distributors (ACDs), 800/900 multi line services, how to keep people waiting on hold, etc. Address is: Inbound/Outbound 12 W 21 Street New York, NY USA 10160-0371 This address is for the Telecom Library folks. They also have published "Teleconnect", another industry magazine. There may or may not be a freebie deals on that, depending on the type of work you do. Ask for subscription information in any case if you're interested. ---------------- LAN LAN Magazine has apparently changed hands. I recently received a subscription offer ($19.97/year). It had a return address of 500 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105. It was signed by Steve Schneiderman, Publisher -- who is apparently _not_ Harry Newton. This is evidenced by the fact that in the entire mailing, no phone numbers (of any kind) appear. ---------------- Lightwave Lightwave Subscription Inquiries 1421 South Sheridan Tulsa, OK 74112 918 832-9262 Editorial offices P.O. Box 988 Westford, MA 01886 508 692-0700 ---------------- Mobile Product News Mobile Product News Phillips Publishing, Inc. 7811 Montrose Road Rockville, MD 20850 301 340-2100 ---------------- NASA Tech Briefs NASA Tech Briefs 41 E. 42nd St. NYC, NY 10017-5391 Tel 212 490-3999 Fax 212 986-7864 ---------------- Network World If you would like to receive a free subscription to Network World, just write to: Network World P.O. Box 1021 Southeastern, PA 19398 U.S.A. They'll send you back a questionnaire to fill out and return, so that you can receive your free subscription. ---------------- Network World If you would like to receive a FREE subscription to Network World: The Newsweekly of User Networking Strategies, write to: Subscriptions Department Network World 161 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701-9172 or telephone (508) 875-6400. ---------------- Networking Management Here's another free one: NETWORKING MANAGEMENT (A PennWell Publication; formerly TPT) Publisher's offices: 1421 South Sheridan Tulsa, OK 74112 Editorial offices: One Technology Park Drive PO Box 988 Westford, MA 01886 (508) 692-0700 Circulation & subscription requests: PO Box 2417 Tulsa, OK 74101 One of the advantages this magazine has (for US readers) is that the bingo card for reader-service is Business-Reply Mail, so it doesn't require postage. This is an edge over competitors like "Telecommunications." This magazine has had some good articles on things like the AOS and COCOT mess, which were ignored in other magazines I see. Regards, Will Martin ---------------- Phone + Phone +, The monthly journal for the public communications industry 13402 N. Scottsdale Road Suite B-185 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-4056 602 483-0014 ---------------- (Communication & Computer) Product & Software News Freebie publication: COMMUNICATION & COMPUTER PRODUCT & SOFTWARE NEWS (abbreviated "P&SN") 685 Canton St. Norwood, MA 02062 USA This is described as a new publication published by Horizon House (the people that put out TELECOMMUNICATIONS) devoted to current and late-breaking news and trends in both voice and data communications areas, directed to a wide ranging audience, from the BOCs and PTTs to OEMs and users of telecom services. I think it is a tabloid; the illustration seems to indicate this but it isn't clearly stated. The first issue is supposed to be (have been) Jan/Feb '90. ---------------- Public Communications Magazine Public Communications Magazine P.O. Box 42371 Houston, TX 77242 Tel 713 974-6637 Fax 713 974-6272 ---------------- Solutions Bell Canada publishes Solutions, a free magazine distributed primarily to its large business customers. (You don't have to be a large business customer to get Solutions, though.) It's obviously intended to get people to buy or rent Bell equipment and services, but it's still fairly interesting. If you'd like to receive a free subscription to Solutions magazine, telephone toll-free 1-800-268-9100. ---------------- T.A.S. Trader T.A.S Trader, Equipment and Services for the T.A.S. Insustry (Telephone Answering Service) P.O. Box 2095 Fullerton, CA 92633 ---------------- Telecom Gear Telecom Gear is a publication, published Monthly. It is a plain jane newsprint type magazine (no slick pages). It runs $15.00 per year. Telecom Gear has ads in it for various brokers, etc for almost any type of telephone equipment ever made. (New and Used equipment.) Also has apparently changed hands -- and has changed it's look and feel -- Now with a mixture of glossy pages and newsprint. The address for Telecom Gear is: Telecom Gear Prestonwood Place 15400 Knoll Trail Dallas, TX 75248 Tel 214 233-5131 Fax 214 233-5514 ---------------- Telecommunications If you would like to receive a free subscription to TELECOMMUNICATIONS magazine, just write to: Circulation Department Telecommunications, 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 USA. They'll send you a questionnaire to fill out and return, and once you've done that, you'll start receiving the magazine regularly. ---------------- Teleconnect (see Inbound/Outbound) ---------------- Telephony Telephony Magazine is published weekly by Intertec Press. I must say that while I don't see much change from the old company that used to publish it, at least the last time I subscribed I didn't have to prove that I did, like the previous two times before with the old company. Anyway, the address for Telephony is: Telephony P.O. Box 12948 Overland Park, KS 66212-9940 The subscription rate is currently $35.00 per year. They no longer offer two or three year subscriptions. ---------------- Telesat Report Telesat Canada, the company that operates Canada's domestic telecommunications satellites, publishes a free newsletter called Telesat Report. If you would like a free subscription, write to The Editor, Telesat Report, Telesat Canada, 1601 Telesat Court, Gloucester, Ontario K1B 5P4, or telephone (voice) 1-800-267-1870 or, in Ottawa, (613)748-0123. ---------------- TPT TPT, The magazine for Networking Management Subscription Inquiries 1421 South Sheridan Tulsa, OK 74112 918 832-9262 Editorial offices P.O. Box 988 Westford, MA 01886 508 692-0700 ----------------- 4th Media Journal Name: "4th Media journal" Address:13402 N Scottsdale Road B-185 Scottsdale AZ 85254 Phone: 602-483-0014 FAX: 602-483-1247 Frequency: monthly Rates: Domestic = US$45/year, "Foreign" = US$110/year Theme: Covers the use of primarily 900 services to sell information provided by media outlets: radio stations, magazines, television stations, newspapers, etc. Both technical and non-technical articles and editorials appear, as well as submissions by and interviews of prominent industry leaders. ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org Date: Tue, 1 May 90 8:25:00 EST Subject: Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Gale Research Inc. publishes a Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory, which lists telecommunications service providers (but not manufacturers), consultants, trade associations, government agencies and the like. If you would like some free publicity for your organization, you might want to request a free listing in the directory. I would particularly encourage organizations outside the U.S. to request listings. For more information, write to: Editor Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Gale Research Inc. 835 Penobscot Building Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094 or telephone (313) 961-2242 You may prefer to pass this note along to your company's marketing department. Telecommunications consultants may also want to request a free listing in the Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory. For more information, write to: Editor Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory Editorial Services Limited P.O. Box 6789 Silver Spring, Maryland 20906 It's probably easier to communicate with both these directories in writing than by phone. The directories themselves can probably be consulted in most major academic and public libraries. * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario (1:250/438) MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen ------------------------------ From: Pete Ferris Subject: Cellular Reading Date: 2 May 90 19:07:55 GMT Reply-To: Pete Ferris Organization: Bellcore MRE For those stout hearted souls that like programming their own (or others) cell phones, you must obtain a copy of "NAM Facts" by Curtis Electro Devices, Inc. (415) 964-3846. No ISBN # - sorry. VERY expensive @ $159, BUT it's the end all, be all guide to programming "all known" cellular phones. Mfrs. secret codes, etc. They'll fax you a poop sheet on the book. Cheers, Pete Ferris P.S.: Please don't hammer me for more info - I just ordered (not yet received) my copy! The poop I saw looked <> interesting. ------------------------------ From: spain@mdcbbs.com Subject: What Voice Mail System is Best? Date: 3 May 90 08:58:47 GMT Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA We are trying to select a Voice Mail system for our company. Knowing nothing about them, we would like to hear from satisfied users. Has your company implemented Voice Mail? Are you happy with the system? What system did you pick? Why? Our company has about 500 employees and we are trying to figure out the *right* system (argh) :-) Please respond via E-Mail (although I follow this conference for followups that others may find useful). Thank you very much for your help! | Harrison M. Spain III | Voice: (714) 952-6114 | | Sr. Section Manager | Fax: (714) 952-5371 | | McDonnell Douglas M&E | Internet: spain@mdcbbs.com | | 5701 Katella Ave. | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs.com!spain | | Cypress, CA 90630 | PSI: PSI%31060099980019::SPAIN | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 11:38:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Baltimore & Washington Pseudo-Foreign I called the Bellcore number and punched in some of those pseudo-foreign prefixes in the DC and Baltimore local areas. Parentheses indicate the place name from phone bills and/or AT&T V&H tape. 301-575 Fork (Aberdeen) 301=557 Fork (Jarrettsville) 301-679 Fork (Edgewood) 301-953 Berwyn (Laurel) 301-621 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Laurel) 301-261 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Annapolis) 301-858 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Parole?) 301-792 Laurel (Laurel)--but Bellcore, for the state name, had something like "Hahn" instead of saying the letters "M D". I would have expected Bellcore to say "Waterloo". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:04:48 PDT From: hughes%ocf.Berkeley.EDU@lilac.berkeley.edu Subject: Free Unlisted Numbers I have a friend who had himself listed variously under the following two names: Hugo Fockaseff Ima Sue Doanem No lie. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #311 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19066; 4 May 90 3:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01592; 4 May 90 1:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23655; 4 May 90 0:34 CDT Date: Thu, 3 May 90 23:38:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #312 BCC: Message-ID: <9005032338.ab17824@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 May 90 23:37:51 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 312 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Little Moderation [Christopher Owens] Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [Brian Kantor] Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Steve Friedl] Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [David Tamkin] Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security [William Degnan] How Toll Busy Line Verify and Emergency Interuppt Work [Raymond J. Rueb] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Fred Goldstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 May 90 13:01:02 199 From: Christopher Owens Subject: A Little Moderation Hi Patrick, I vote that you be a little more iron-fisted in your suppression of the endless discussion of Caller-ID. I think most of the opinions that we're seeing are repeats and minor variants of the four or five basic opinions on the topic: CLID is good CLID is good if caller can block number delivery CLID is bad CLID is bad but acceptable if caller can block number delivery CLID only gives to the individual something that owners of 800 and 900 numbers already have anyway Or, at least be sure that all messages about Caller-ID have some common phrase in the subject line so that kill files are effective. Thanks, /c [Moderator's Note: Your summary above is about the most succinct I've seen. When this topic first came up for the upteenth time last week, I said we would have a half-dozen replies more or less, and the four which follow will conclude the discussion here, until next time. :) Next time? ! A decent interval might be three or four months at least. Bonafide technical messages/questions are the exception. PT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 3 May 90 16:01:55 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I don't mind people knowing who I am when I call them or when I knock on their doors. I do mind them having my telephone number or address. My opposition to Caller-IDd would nearly vanish if the string delivered to the called party was by default the listing in the phone directory, or for unlisted people, a string that I had specified (default might well be "unlisted" or such). Further, if I could CHANGE that string myself (by dialing a number, then entering the new ID string as digit pairs or some such), I'd be much happier. That way I may identify myself in any way I choose - same as I may in person. I suspect a difficulty here is that so many telephone people have a mindset which cannot separate a person's number from his identity. But as it stands, it seems to me to be a "feature" only half-engineered - I suspect it was designed as a calling-number-delivery service rather than a calling-party service - probably with an aim to selling the service to subscribers who wish to collect telephone numbers, rather than to identify callers as one person or another - that is, telemarketing businesses. And that I oppose. Brian ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 3 May 90 16:42:49 GMT Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386 Tom Gray writes: > This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls. > This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks. So what's next? "Automatic Fake Caller ID for Non-ID-Blocking Recipients" ?? Steve ;-) Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 18:06 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product Tom Gray wrote in volume 10, issue 307: | This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls. | This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks. Hmm ... first, we now have a new source of confusion: a caller who enters a code to refuse delivery of Caller-ID and a callee who keys his or her system to reject calls that lack Caller-ID information are both said to be "blocking." Anyhow, there's a big problem with automatic blocking of unidentified calls: inter-LATA calls and those placed from switches that cannot supply CLID info are also unidentified. Are callers who cannot supply CLID to be treated the same as those who refuse to? David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 90 22:46:31 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security In a message of Troy Monaghen (troym@mot.com ) writes: TM>Any comments on how well this would work? Does anybody know of a TM>Caller-ID device with an RS232 port so I can connect it to my TM>computer? There are a bunch of BBS operators (me too) waiting for Caller ID to be available from their telco for just this reason. SWB is waiting until the heat dies down elsewhere before implementing. We expect Austin to be a logical first site for SWB in Texas, since they are trialing other CLASS options here. And so it also seems logical that we have a local firm with the product you describe. I got to fondle one recently. It is cute. What else can you say about a device that is self-contained ... in a DB-25 shell? Anyhow, these are the folks: Rochelle Communications, Inc. 8716 N. Mopac, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78759 +1-512-794-0088 416-9820 @MCIMAIL.COM Regards, Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!WDegnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: WDegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ From: "Raymond J. Rueb" Subject: How Toll Busy Line and Emergency Interrupt Work Date: 2 May 90 19:00:33 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL After reading the previous discussions, I think there is some confusion about what the operator is capable of during BLV and EI situations. So, "How Toll Busy Line Verify (BLV) and Emergency Interrupt (EI) Work" I worked on OSPS BLV & EI for AT&T, and I became familiar with how TSPS works also. For TOPS info, ask someone else (though this information should be close). The best way to understand BLV and EI is to run through a customer to operator to termination scenario. 1) After repeatedly receiving a busy signal from their intended forward number, a customer calls the operator and asks if the operator can help. 2) The operator enters "VERIFY mode". On TSPS this is done by accessing a separate call loop and performing the VERIFY on that loop. On OSPS the operator has a separate VERIFY key to press which causes the switch to perform the following checks: a) Is there a valid forward number? b) Is the forward number within this operator's VERIFY network? If not, the operator must go inward to the local operator who can then perform the VERIFY. More about VERIFY networks later. c) Is the forward number verifiable? ie: is it on the list of numbers of which the operator is not allowed to perform BLV and EI. I never understood this idea, maybe the CIA might rest easier, but it really is a security redundancy. 3) If this operator can perform the VERIFY, then the operator presses send. a) The call begins to route over the VERIFY network. b) The back party is automatically split from the connection (for security reasons, OSPS only; in TSPS the operator is performing the VERIFY on a separate loop and there is no back party on that loop) c) The operator's talking path is disabled. d) A voice scrambler circuit kicks in (in TSPS this is a physical circuit attached to the trunk, in OSPS this is firmware in the operator's VDT). The scrambler allows the operator to tell IF conversation is taking place, but not WHAT is being said. It kinda sounds like ducks talking. 4) The call arrives at the local Central Office (CO) on an incoming BLV trunk. This is where my knowledge is a little weak. If the number to be verified is a line loaded on that switch, then we're home free. The switch automatically causes a test trunk to bridge the port associated with the number being called and the operator is now connected with all forward parties associated with the call. If, however, the line is on a PBX connected to the CO, the connection MAY be verifiable. I believe all true PBX's must have incoming VERIFY trunks and be capable of performing BLV bridging. I know that some PBX's can do this (a 5ESS Switch (tm) can be a PBX), but I don't know whether ALL PBX's can do this. It works on centrex. 5) The operator listens to the scrambled connection to determine if the line is in-service or not. This method of determination has the following drawbacks: a) If there is a long lull in the conversation when the operator performs the VERIFY, the operator might assume that the number is out of service. b) Most operators don't seem to be able to recognize data connections through the scrambler (what's that funny noise???) c) A pre-howler announcement, "please hang-up the phone" sounds like conversation. There's actually a lot of debate as to what constitutes in-service; if the telco's product is working, but the person has recently left the phone off-hook, is it in-service? 6) The operator splits the forward connection, unsplits the back party (TSPS operators change loops) and informs the customer of the status. 7) The customer requests an EI. 8) The OSPS operator presses the EI key. a) The back party is split. b) A two second long 440Hz tone is applied to the forward connection. c) The scrambler is deactivated. d) The operator's voice path with the forward connection is restored. e) Every 10 seconds, a 0.5 second tone is repeated to serve as a reminder to the forward parties that their conversation is no longer private. This tone continues until the operator breaks the EI bridge. 9) The operator can now talk with the forward party and request that they hang-up so that the back party can call them. 10) The operator relays the response to the back party. At this point the operator will charge the customer for the VERIFY and EI. If they have been taught well, the operator will ask if the back party wants the operator to connect them with their intended forward party. This will result in additional charges for an operator assisted call. NOTES about BLV and EI service: 1) BLV and EI are separately tariffed services, but are always flat rate. Some states, like Michigan, don't allow charging for BLV but do allow EI charges. 2) During VERIFY and EI, the back party and forward party are NEVER in contact. 3) Calls CANNOT be completed across the VERIFY network. 4) The VERIFY network USUALLY crosses LATA boundaries. 5) The VERIFY network is often BOC owned, and often only the BOCs are allowed access to them. This means that BOCs frequently are in the position of providing INTER-LATA BLV and EI services. Since BOCs are forbidden from providing inter-lata services like COLLECT and CARD#, why is inter-lata BLV allowed? NOTES about the VERIFY network and security: 1) The VERIFY network is separate from the toll network. 2) Routing on the VERIFY network cannot occur from a customer's phone. If you're accidently routed to a VERIFY trunk, your signaling will be wrong. 3) Much emphasis has been placed on operators being able to break into private phone conversations as a breach of privacy. Given the way BLV and EI perform (with the scrambler and tones) I don't feel that this is an issue. HOWEVER.... 4) Craft test sets have special software to prevent routing on trunks MARKED as VERIFY trunks, but there is NOTHING to prevent a craft person from modifying how a trunk is marked, and then routing (of course it is still special routing signalling that must be used, but them craft seem to know about it). I was appalled to find out that this is common practice when testing the BLV trunks. What this means is that a skilled, but unscrupulous, craftsperson has the unsupervised, unmonitored, unscrambled ability to listen in on ANY active phone conversation anywhere their VERIFY network reaches. Guess you gotta trust them. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Date: 3 May 90 17:35:08 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <7174@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) writes... >Mssrs. Goldenstein and Wolfe, each in their own way, seem to pro- >liferate a misconception oeprating telephone companies want us to >hold: That the capital cost of building new transmission facilities >with today's technology is as heavy a burden as it has always been. > Not true! In fact, the base capital cost of providing added >transmission facilities has plummeted in recent years, often to >factors one-tenth or less of what they were even a decade ago ... and >even in unadjusted-for-inflation figures. Mister Kimburling (sic) seems to have a great faith in the ability of technology to overcome economics. Sometimes it's true. Sometimes it's not. This thread began, if you recall, with a comment about rural multi-party telephones. Not city or suburb, but serious boondock country where the local telco doesn't even ask you if you want single-party lines. In such cases, the latest and greatest telco transmission technology can help a little, but not a lot. This is an especially serious problem in America, due to the rural land pattern. In Europe, for instance, most agricultural areas are arranged village/farm, where everybody lives in the village and farmers commute (maybe less than a mile) to their fields. In America, small farmers tend to live on their land, amongst the pigs and chickens. In the homesteaded areas of the country (i.e., the Great Plains), land tenure was created in units of 40 and 160 acres, so the houses tend to be evenly spaced every half-mile or so. Only the center of each Township (usually a 6x6 mile square) has a village. In northeastern areas, rural areas are marked by natural boundaries (mountains, rivers, etc.) and houses are scattered willy-nilly along winding roads. It's these customers who are hardest to serve. When you are within a road-mile of only three or ten neighbors, who is there to mux your line with? Muxes require a "star" configuration at the pedestal-point. Sure, that works in villages, and it allows the telcos to substantially reduce the distances they have to go. But the "last mile" is a lonely, costly one, with maybe a 25-pair aerial cable serving a few road miles. I did run into one interesting technological advance aimed at such markets. A little start-up developed a fiber optic mux system with a very low cost, weather-safe (mount atop the pole) terminal, designed to work in a tree-topology exchange plant. For various reasons it isn't suitable for the US market and I don't know how they're doing, but it's not like nobody's thinking about the problem. It's just that the really spread-out customer base in rural areas isn't easy to serve with any available technology. (Yes, there are a few technologies that have been suggested but for various reasons, like the FCC, not approved. Radio local loops (fixed cellular is a fancy version) are sometimes useful. Cable TV can carry telephone channels too, if you solve the privacy issues (i.e., digitizing and encrypting). But that still requires physical copper, not cheap to pull.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 disclaimer: opinions are mine alone, sharing requires permission ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #312 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21401; 4 May 90 4:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00994; 4 May 90 2:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01592; 4 May 90 1:41 CDT Date: Fri, 4 May 90 0:41:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #313 BCC: Message-ID: <9005040041.ab04156@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 May 90 00:41:17 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 313 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson More Cell Phone Reprogramming [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Reprogramming Your Cellular Phone [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [David Tamkin] Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Bob Goudreau] Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [John Higdon] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-MAY-1990 17:23:30.26 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: More Cell Phone Reprogramming Hmmm.. (In response to what the Moderator noted at the end of my last post about reprogramming my Audiovox Cell Phone...) Is it indeed still possible to reprogram your phone, thus enabling you to make calls for free? After visitng my cell phone store a few months ago and talking with a guy there, I got the impression that it was no longer possible unless you went out and copied someone else's ESN *and* phone number into your phone. IE, you need to get some other, *valid* user's ESN and number, and then use it until said other customer gets his or her bill, and has his number changed. So if I'm in my home system, (non-Roam), it's not very easy to get "free" service since I'd need this info, and it's doubtful anyone would just tell me their ESN and #. I was told that the trick would be to go Roaming somewhere, since foreign systems didn't immediately check to see if you had a valid ESN / Phone number match, and thus would, for a while at least, allow you to make calls without having a valid billing number. However, according to what I was told at the store, most systems do a check the first time you use them after you have entered their "roam area", so it has become just as hard to cheat in a Roam area as it is your home area, and hence it is now quite difficult to reprogram your phone in an effort to make free calls with it. (Oh, and of course I wouldn't cheat on my cell phone - I'm not a big fan of being pulled over on the freeway by the police, and don't want to give them a reason to do so: "Sir, do you know you were ROAMing into a new service area with an invalid ESN? I'll have to write you up a citation for that!" Errr...how many points is that?? :-) ) -Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-) ) [Moderator's Note: Normally you cannot make local calls with a serial number mismatch. The serial number is difficult/impossible to change, and if it does not match the phone number being used on the carrier records, the call will be rejected. You can get away with a few things roaming that you can't do locally, but someone will eventually scream about that and your ESN will go on a fraud list. But ... some cellular carriers, or at least Cellular One in Chicago, have a few numbers 'laying around' on which the serial is NOT checked, for whatever reason. These might be numbers used by the employees of the carrier using several phones on the same line; they may be numbers used by dealers to demo their products; or they may be instances of the carrier just doing a sloppy job of record keeping and guarding their network against abuse. In any event, people find those numbers and soon learn that LOCAL calls (rarely does an LD carrier seem to be assigned) can be made or received via that number with relative impunity, particularly if they watch their mouth on who they call via that number and what they talk about. Illegal? Of course. Being done? I am told it is happening. PT] ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone Date: 4 May 90 01:29:20 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In article <7144@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: >So ... if anoyne knows how to reprogram an Audiovox CMT-450 cell >phone, I'd love to hear about it ... >[Moderator's Note: Whenever you make any changes in programming, be >certain to obtain the carrier's approval and permission before >actually using the instrument. And I hope that anyone responding >publicly or privately to Mr. Reuben will include a disclaimer in their >message like this one pointing out that it is illegal to reprogram >your cell phone to avoid the lawful charges of a carrier. PT] I have purposely left in the Moderators remarks as requested. I have an Audiovox CT5000 (The portable, in car and transportable set which I consider one of the most versatile on the market). Assuming that the CMT-450 is closely related, try the following: Punch in your lock code. Press Function then "#" then 1. From there on you can reprogram all sorts of different things with the first location (Number 1) being the 10 digit 'phone number. Punch in the new authorized number then press enter. The display cycles to Number 2. Then punch in Function Clear. The phone resets in you should be back in business. *WARNING and DISCLAIMER* Like I said this is for the 5000 series. You are on your own!! However, Good luck! ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 22:18 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 302: | Unlike Cellular One, they do not charge separately for 'transfer on busy' | and 'transfer on no answer' at $2.00 each. Patrick is a bit confused here. Ameritech Mobile has two kinds of Call Transfer: Immediate (unconditional forwarding until you enter the deactivation code) and Busy/No Answer. They charge $2.00 a month for each. Southwestern Bell's Cellular One in metropolitan Chicago charges $2.00 total for a package that includes all three. Cellular One had sent me some literature, and I read the appropriate parts of it to Pat over the phone. When I explained to him that Busy Forwarding and No Answer Forwarding were separately activated and deactivated (unlike being a single feature as with Ameritech Mobile) he must have misunderstood that they were also separately billed. They aren't. Ameritech Mobile charges $2.00 per month for Immediate and $2.00 for Busy/No Answer; Cellular One charges $2.00 total for Immediate, Busy, and No Answer Transfer. | Neither do they, like Cellular One, charge airtime for calls being | forwarded (to another landline number) Nor does Cellular One; in fact, they weren't charging for the landline cost either back when Ameritech Mobile still was. | or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call- | waiting. Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges | *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or | accept a call waiting. Yes, that they do. If you answer Call Waiting without terminating the interrupted call, Cellular One does charge double airtime for as long as you have both calls going; the same goes for using Three-Way Calling. Unless Cellular One has just changed that, that is one aspect in which they do charge more than Ameritech Mobile, who do not charge for double simultaneous airtime. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:07:12 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <7164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HAMER@ruby.vcu.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes: > "Gregory G. Woodbury" writes: > > Dialing in Durham to the extended calling area is still only > >7D. All other calls are 1+NPA+7D. Duke University, embedded in > >Durham's GTE satrapy, is not participating in the extended calling > >area and all calls beyond the traditional local area are 1+NPA+7D. > >Makes for a confusing situation when dialing Chapel Hill from home > >versus calling from Duke. The ability to use N0/1X exchange numbers > >will only set back the need for another area code in NC for 4 years! > If I am remembering correctly what I read occasionally down there, > there are plans (perhaps already implemented) to make dialing the > Research Triangle Park local from Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, > and vica-versa. Or maybe making the entire triangle area some sort of > extended local area. Actually, Research Triangle Park has been a local call from all three cities for many years now (and vice versa; all three cities are local calls from RTP as well). Conceptually, one can think of RTP as being in 3 different calling areas at once. A couple of years ago this approach was extended to Raleigh/Durham International Airport as well. Until then, you would see banks of payphones in the airport, each with a sign above it: "Raleigh calls", "Durham calls", or "Chapel Hill calls". If you wanted your call to be charged as a local call, you had to use the right flavor of payphone. There were special arrangements to run the lines for the Durham and Chapel Hill payphones back to the appropriate central offices, since the airport is in Wake County (adjacent to Raleigh, and thus in the Raleigh calling area). Also making its appearance in the last two years was the extended calling area concept. The problem is that there are more extended calling area plans than there are telcos, and there are way too many telcos! (Southern Bell in Raleigh and most of the rest of Wake Country, and also in Chapel Hill & Carrboro; GTE in most of Durham County; Carolina Telephone for Oxford, Pittsboro, Angier, Clayton, Fuquay-Varina and Wake Forest; Mebane Home Telephone Co. in Hillsborough and environs; and I think one or two others that I can't remember.) Each company has its own extended calling plan, and some have more than one plan! Southern Bell, for instance, offers at least three different plans, ranging from unlimited exended calling (for a higher monthly fixed charge) to a fixed per-call charge (regardless of call duration) on extended calls (with a slightly higher monthly fixed charge). GTE appears to offer just one plan (called TriWide). > I suspect some of the difficulties stem from different telephone > companies. Back when I was in school there, the Chapel Hill Telephone > Company was owned by the University -- it supplied service to the > entire town; not just the University. Similarly (if I remember > correctly), so was the electric / power company. Sometime around 1970 > the University divested itself of both properties. Durham telephone > service is supplied by GTE. Chapel Hill is now served by Southern Bell. Apparently, it and Duke followed the same basic plan in divesting themselves of their telcos. I still find it incredibly annoying that the area is covered by a patchwork of different telcos instead of just one monolithic one. The boundaries of local calling areas (and thus the factors that distinguish a free call from a toll call) are based more on phone company rivalries than on solid geographic or business considerations. For illustrative purposes, consider the differences between the Raleigh/Cary and the Durham/Chapel Hill areas. Raleigh (pop. 240,000) sits on the other side of Interstate 40 from Cary (pop. 45,000); the city limits touch, and it's about ten miles from one city center to the other. Both cities are in the same Southern Bell calling area, so they're served by the same phonebook (the two-inch thick Raleigh directory) and calls between them are free. Now travel about 20 miles west on I-40. Again we find a small city (Chapel Hill, pop. 40,000) sitting across the highway from a larger neighbor (Durham, pop. 130,000). Again, we have two municipalities whose borders are immediately adjacent and which have little more than ten miles separating their central areas. But in this case, it's as if they were on opposite sides of the globe! Each city has its own telco (GTE for Durham, Southern Bell for Chapel Hill), its own phone book (the 1-inch thick Durham directory and the 3/4-inch thick Chapel Hill/Carrboro directory) and its own small calling area. Unless you subscribe to one of the extended calling area plans, calls between the two cities (not to mention to "distant" Raleigh) are long-distance! If I could magically redraw the telco map, I would wish for one big calling area, served by a single company with a single phonebook, for the whole Triangle area. But barring that, even a reduction to just two areas (Wake County, and Durham & Orange Counties) would be a blessing. Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution Date: 3 May 90 14:23:34 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net writes: > (It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA. > D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude > less. Quite right; there are commonly available meter movements that operate at 10 ua full-scale. But a D'Arsonval meter movement is *not* a relay. It is a carefully crafted watchlike movement, using jeweled bearings, that has a design function to simply "move" a pointer with minimum friction across a meter face. If you were to try to put any current whatsoever across the bearing, the unit would become inoperative in a very short time. And the addition of a "strap" to carry the load current would inhibit the movement. A cursory examination of the catalogs has not been able to turn up a relay that can operate on 0.5 mw. Remember the issue is not whether there is a relay that will operate on 100 ua, but whether there is one that will operate at that current *at 5 volts*. As a kid, I remember seeing some very sensitive relays. They were large, can-enclosed, shock-mounted devices used in some CO application. They would not have worked (or fit) inside a telephone instrument. I know that in my various tinkerings over the years, it would have been very helpful to have a relay with the discussed sensitivity. Unfortunately, none has ever been found. Of course, I never had access to secret government agencies, either. > A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender. LL > seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond > reality.) No, not really. I would assume that you would want the relay to release when the current was removed. A bias magnet is not an amplifier. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Thu, 3 May 90 15:18:11 GMT > > In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial > > statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a > > profit. This is usually break-even at best. How about the elevators? Do the elevators run at a profit? Maybe the maid service makes a net profit off tips? Hotel phone service isn't a separate profit-making operation. It's (as John says down lower) part of the cost of doing business. > So how, pray tell, does an operation such as Motel 6 manage to provide > clean, reasonable rooms, free local calls, no surcharge on long > distance calls, for such low rates? Perhaps they don't try to shove internal bookkeeping considerations in their guests' faces. `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #313 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21534; 4 May 90 4:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00994; 4 May 90 2:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01592; 4 May 90 1:41 CDT Date: Fri, 4 May 90 1:34:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #314 BCC: Message-ID: <9005040134.ab22404@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 May 90 01:33:51 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 314 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) [Pat Cain] New Illinois Bell Services [Steven King] Running Out of Phone Numbers [Wally Kramer] Australian NPA System [Linc Madison] Alphabetical Frivolity [J. Stephen Reed] DTMF and Other Phone Tones [Ray Dueland] Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-down Tool [Roy Smith] Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-down Tool [Eric Hughes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Cain Subject: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) Reply-To: Pat Cain Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand. Date: Wed, 02 May 90 20:40:24 GMT About a week ago I was reading a few articles about dialling the extra DTMF tones using Hayes modems. My modem is a "MicroLink Multi-Speed Modem" manufactured by PACE Communications in the UK. The documentation for dialling is as follows... ATD followed by: telephone number N (eg. ATDNCave searches for the string "Cave" in the modem dialling directory the modem and dials that number, alternately ATDN7 dials directory entry 7.) P Dial number using PULSE dialling T Dial number using DTMF tones R Reverse mode (switch into answer mode when call is answered) W Wait for a dial tone (eg. ATD 1W661231 dials 1, waits for dial tone then continues dialling) , Cause a delay whose length is determined by register S8 ; Force modem to return to local mode at end of dial command. So, it isn't possible to make my modem answer by typing ATDT A. If you do this, it just sends the DTMF tone for A. So as a few other people have said, "telephone number" can be {0..9, A..D} to represent all the 16 tones. I'm not saying this is the case with all modems, obviously just some. Incidently, the manual doesn't mention that ABCD can be used to dial the other four tones. What does a real Hayes modem do? Pat Cain Sideways BBS {BBC, Archimedes} +64-4-661231 cs200cap@st1.vuw.ac.nz | patrick@actrix.co.nz ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: New Illinois Bell Services Date: 2 May 90 22:36:03 GMT Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I just found (in my phone bill) a quick rundown on new features being implemented in certain areas covered by Illinois Bell. I'd never heard of some of these before, and I figured the rest of the group might be interested in the information. So without further ado... ---------- ADVANCED CUSTOM CALLING NOW GETTING UNDERWAY IN SOME SERVICE AREAS In limited service areas, Illinois Bell(R) Advanced Custom Calling Services are now becoming available. Advanced Custom Calling Services take up where Custom Calling leaves off. The give you even greater control over your phone -- from any phone in your house. To receive a free, no-strings demonstration over the phone, just call Quick Teach toll-free at 1-800-678-9868. Here's how these services work: ILLINOIS BELL(R) AUTOMATIC CALLBACK. Eliminates the worry of missing a call if you don't get to the phone on time. It returns the last call -- automatically. ILLINOIS BELL(R) REPEAT DIALING. Your phone will re-dial a busy number for up to 30 minutes. ILLINOIS BELL(R) DISTINCTIVE RINGING. Lets you know that someone special is calling even before you pick up the phone. You can program up to ten numbers. ILLINOIS BELL(R) CALL SCREENING. Protects you from nuisance callers. Once you program their numbers, they can't get through to you. They get a recording instead. ---------- The only new feature I recognize is distinctive ringing; the rest are news to me. Auto callback and call screening look like interesting preludes to/ replacements for Caller*ID. Steve King, uunet!motcid!king [Most of the city will have these features during the third quarter, 1990. In Chicago-Rogers Park, Chicago-Edgewater, and Chicago-Newcastle they will be implemented in the fourth quarter, 1990. A few areas have the full complement of features already. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 14:00:27 PDT From: Wally Kramer Subject: Running Out of Phone Numbers Seems to me, all this trouble of splitting phone area codes is a short term solution for an inevitable problem which requires a better solution. Digit legend: N = 2-9 P = 0,1 X = 0-9 Near the beginning of DDD (direct distance dialing) the numbering scheme was NPX-NNX-XXXX. (Some combinations such as area codes 211, 311, etc. were reserved but this doesn't affect my point.) Some areas (circa 1977) exhausted possible exchanges. The "solution" was NPN-NXX-XXXX (allowing exchanges to have zero or one as the middle digit). This minor change surprised some phone equipment vendors (and maybe a telco or two) who assumed exchange numbers would never have a zero or one for the center digit. Mildly inconvenient, but not tragic. Next, we had area codes "split". Splitting an area code means something like half the exchanges within an area code are moved to an unused or sparsely used area code. This was easy on the software, but rather annoying for the phone system users. A possible (but likely?) future expansion would be to allow more area codes by removing the middle digit restriction. A densely populated city could conceivably have 35 area codes. This shouldn't present any particular problem, but more assumptions likely will be violated. Exchanges Area Codes Total Total Type Per Area Code Possible Exchanges Numbers NPN-NNX-XXXX 640 128 81,920 819 M NPN-NXX-XXXX 800 128 102,400 1024 M NXX-NXX-XXXX 800 800 640,000 6400 M NXX-XXX-XXXX 1000 800 800,000 8000 M Now, eight BILLION phone lines seems like plenty. But history suggests this is not so. (Remember when 64 kbytes of computer memory was "more than you could ever use?") No doubt we'll find some way to gobble up phone numbers, too. (Perhaps connecting every household device [toaster, heating/cooling] to the network. Sure, it's science fiction now--or is it?--how about that BSR remote control system?) Enough is never enough for long. Eight billion lines distributed perfectly to North America with say, a population of half a billion, is only 16 lines per potential subscriber. That's a margin too close for comfort. The basic problem then is: How do we add more digits? A radical approach is to forget the current system. [I'd expect a little opposition to this suggestion :-).] We could say that area codes will have say, five digits, and look like NXXXX. Zero and one can still have their current special meanings to resemble other countries. Might as well make exchanges five digits, too. And four digit numbers within an exchange (extension?) seems reasonable so lets make it five. Holy digits, Batman! 15-digit phone numbers! For half a billion subscribers, this equals 1.6 million lines per potential subscriber. Problem solved. Maybe until the 22nd century. A (little) less radical approach is to add a third heirarchy of zones: perhaps between area codes and exchanges. Since we like groups of three, phone numbers would look like NXX-NXX-NXX-XXXX for a total of 5120 billion numbers or about ten thousand per subscriber. Probably adequate, but this might be a radical change from the telco's viewpoint. Okay, how about abandoning a fixed-number-of-digits dialing system. Let's just add to the current system. For example, you dial NXX-XXX-0000 and then you can dial more digits. The number of digits depends on the particulars of the line. If it's home, maybe only 4 more digits access the refrigerator (it would, of course, demand a password after you connect to it). If it's work, 5 digits accesses your (inner) office, and 3 more your electronic concierge. Some of the problems which come to mind: When should answer supervision start? Should the system interact "before" placing the call (like finding out how many more digits are needed)? So, does anyone know what's going to be done? wallyk@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363 [Moderator's Note: 'What is going to be done' at least for the next three or four years is use up the traditional supply of numbers still left. Then a couple more may be slipped in of the X11 or X00 variety not in use anywhere. A couple numbers of the X10 variety are free to use. Then, maybe five years down the road from now, area codes will look like regular prefixes. That should last until long after all of us have departed this veil of tears. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 01:57:12 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Australian NPA System Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <7067@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Horsfall (dave@stcns3.stc.oz.au) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 300, Message 5 of 9 >In article <6983@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu >(Linc Madison) writes: >| (According to the Australian version of the NPA >| scheme, "008" would be in Tasmania, but I doubt they'll run out of >| area codes there any time soon.) >Huh? Last I looked, Tasmania had two area codes - 002 for the Hobart >area (south) and 003 for the Launceston area (north). Sorry -- I guess my comment wasn't clear. What I was referring to is that the capital cities in Australia have area codes 0N, and in general the area codes are then 0NX for other cities in the same state. For example, 07 - Brisbane, 070 - Cairns, 07X - the rest of Queensland. Of course, there are other exceptions to my very general rule (089 -- which would be in South Australia -- is the entire Northern Territory). Since N.T. used to be part of S.A., though, in general all area codes with the same first significant digit are in the same state. (Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.) Well, anyway, you see what I meant.... 00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers* 01X - unused 02X - New South Wales 03X - Victoria 04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory 05X - Unused 06X - Victoria 07X - Queensland 08X - South Australia, Northern Territory 09X - Western Australia *It just occurred to me that this would also include things like 0011 for international dialing, but that leads me right to my disclaimer: I've never lived in Oz, so I only know a little bit about what I'm talking about. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney and Melbourne, respectively? Also, isn't Launceston 004? Nitpicky minds want to know.... ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 23:56 EST From: "J. Stephen Reed" <0002909785@mcimail.com> Subject: Alphabetical Frivolity Patrick had a msg (about ten days back, I'm lax on catching up with the TELECOM mail) where he reacted to the complaint of a reader about such businesses as "Harry's Amoco" being listed under "H," not "A." I would agree that "for frivolous complaints, this takes the cake," as Pat said. But I was reminded of a country that DOES invert the issue at hand, and that is Iceland. The Icelandic custom is to make all last names involve the father's first name. For example, Sigurd's son Sven would be "Sven Sigurdssohn." Sven's son Njorl would be "Njorl Svenssohn." For women, Sigurd's daughter Brunne would be "Brunne Sigurdsdotter." Etc. The "-ssohn" and "-sdotter" are continued to the umpteenth generation. Not the same as in most cultures, right? Neither are the phone listings. All those with the first name Sigurd are grouped together, and then alphabetized secondarily by last names. (This was publicized about four years back when the Reykjavik summit was held on the Iceland tundra between Reagan and Gorbachev. The country's president, a woman, had many questions directed to her from feminist-thinking newsies about why this archaic patronym system still existed. She saw it as entirely natural.) I daresay the correspondent would have much less trouble finding out where the BP, Q8, or Shell station was listed that he saw in downtown Reykjavik, but I don't know whether gas stations have fathers or not. 8-) 8-) Steve Reed * Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296, Chicago, IL 60611 0002909785@mcimail.com * 74766.347@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Dueland Subject: DTMF and Other Phone Tones Reply-To: Ray Dueland Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO Date: Thu, 3 May 90 05:35:11 GMT In article <29529@cup.portal.com> dbell@cup.portal.com (David J Bell) writes: >This wont work, though, if the telco locks out DTMF service on >the affected lines. Then, *only* pulse (rotary) dialers will work! Electronic switching equipment is getting more and more sophisticated. This isn't really appropriate for alt.drugs, but I thought this rebel group might enjoy knowing about the phone switching tones. Many times you can hear faint tones in the background while you're talking long distance. If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the tones are not the standard DTMF Touch Tone sounds, although they are similar (both use a pair of tones). A small device similar to the inexpensive DTMF dialers (a blue box) allow free LD calls to be made (illegally). Another interesting way to phuck with the phones is to use the A-D tones on the DTMF tones (DTMF is a 16 tone-pair standard, the vast majority of phones can only generate 12 of the tones, but most can be modified to generate the other 4). If the D tone is active while calling long distance directory assistance, your call is switched out to another switching system. From here you can set up conference calls from around the country for the 50 cent charge of calling directory assistance. I've left out some important details, so it would be impossible to make use of the above information. I just find it fascinating that there are weak spots in the phone system that can be exploited. It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly. Pacific Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated. Modern ESS phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take appropriate action. [Moderator's Note: I'm a facist myself. That's why I strongly discourage your efforts. Anyway, don't you think lots of calls to DA lasting several minutes each look sort of odd? PT] ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 3 May 90 13:08:13 GMT Jim Gonzalez writes: > has anyone used [the Siemon (*not* Siemens)] S66MT. They warn that it > is only suitable for occasional work I've got one. It works, but it's not very much fun to use. I very quickly went out and bought a real spring-loaded one to replace it, so the $16 or so I spent on the cheap one was essentially a waste. Come to think of it, virtually every cheap tool I've ever bought has eventually been replaced by a good one; cheap tools just aren't worth it. In a real emergency, you can probably manage to get a wire into a 66 block with some needle-nose pliers and a bit of care. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:02:22 PDT From: hughes%ocf.Berkeley.EDU@lilac.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool In Telecom-Digest: V10 I306 M5, Jim Gonzales writes: >My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool? It is a >Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT. They warn that it is only suitable for >occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and >therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block. The risk is danger to your hands. I used one of those non-spring loaded types once for a couple dozen blocks and you get really sore heels in your hands. If you have only a small amount to do, though, it's probably OK. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: But remember folks, a good workman never complains about the Tool he has been given to work with! :) Pay no attention to me: Its Friday, thank goddess! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #314 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05359; 5 May 90 19:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06121; 5 May 90 18:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24363; 5 May 90 17:05 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 16:44:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #315 BCC: Message-ID: <9005051644.ab10395@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 16:43:50 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 315 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Peter da Silva] Re: A Coat Hanger [Peter Desnoyers] Re: A Coat Hanger [Roger Haaheim] Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [John Opalko] Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [Joel B. Levin] Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Julian Macassey] Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [John G. De Armond] Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [Brian Kantor] Re: Fax Directories [Hector Myerston] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Jody Kravitz] Re: MCI Around Town Surcharges [Mark Robert Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Thu, 3 May 90 15:31:31 GMT In article <7122@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bobh1@cbnewse.att.com writes: > Telcos are not ALLOWED to force people to change from multi-party > service to (more convenient) more expensive single line service. Are they not allowed to change the service type, or are they just not allowed to charge more for the service? > This is good for the customers, Is it? Wouldn't it make more sense to just grandfather the lower rates in on those lines, and then convert them as it becomes feasible, with the idea of eventually phasing out party lines altogether. > It's these customers who are hardest to serve. When you are within a > road-mile of only three or ten neighbors, who is there to mux your > line with? Muxes require a "star" configuration at the > pedestal-point. Sounds like a perfect market for a bus-style device, like Ethernet but tuned to voice requirements. 3 KHz, sampled 8 bits wide at 6 KHz, using something like fibonacci delta compression gives a data rate of 24 Kbit/second. Times 4 (4-party lines, remember) you get 96 kbaud. Plus protocol overhead. Over these long lines collission detection would probably be a loss, but there are only 4 of them so let the CO poll them for data. Maybe once a second when a connection's not open. Doesn't sound like that expensive a box in quantity. How much would such a beast cost? `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address. ------------------------------ From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger Date: 4 May 90 13:03:05 GMT Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: >Found on a wooden coat hanger, here at work: > H. C. Nahman > Merchant Tailor > Est. Since 1906 > 807 Divisadero St. > San Francisco, Cal. > Phone WEST 1393 Pretty old if Divisadero Street is "WEST" - only about 50 more blocks until you hit the ocean :-) What I have always wanted to find out is what 75 stands for in S.F. "ParK" maybe? All the older numbers (and most new ones) in the area I used to live in (Haight near Stanyan) had 75x-xxxx numbers, and I'd like to find out definitively what station that used to stand for. Peter Desnoyers peterd@codex.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Roger Haaheim Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger Date: 3 May 90 15:34:57 GMT Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA Wide or narrow lapels :^} ------------------------------ From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts Date: 4 May 90 20:13:30 GMT Reply-To: jgo@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle In article <6948@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"? >I would kill for a video cassette of some of these programs. I'm taking the "Weather" course given by the United States Power Squadrons (national safe-boating group) and was loaned a tape of "The Unchained Goddess", a "Bell Science Series" program about weather from 1958. Fun stuff!! The tapes apparently are available, but I don't know where you'd find them. Perhaps give AT&T a jingle? If anybody finds a source for the tapes, let us know!! I'd like to see the rest of them. John Opalko jgo@mcgp1.uucp ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts Date: 4 May 90 12:51:15 GMT Reply-To: Joel B Levin Organization: BBN Communications Corporation In article <6948@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 291, Message 1 of 11 |Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"? . . . Yes, yes, YES! I remember Dr. Baxter very well. We saw these when they were first broadcast on TV and on 16mm in elementary through high school at various times. I have thought about these a number of times since then and of course when the "Telephone Hour"(*) was mentioned. I remember "Our Mr. Sun" "Hemo the Magnificent" "Meteora the Unchained Goddess" and at least one on the subject of language modelled on ALICE IN WONDERLAND, where Dr. Baxter answered a lot of questions about language. |These programs were in color (pretty avant garde for late-fifties) and |were later made available on 16mm film for schools. I would kill for a |video cassette of some of these programs. So would I-- boy-oh-boy. My little girl would love them (I think). /JBL (*)I also remember these, though when they were on regularly we also had Playhouse 90, the Kraft Playhouse and other very fine regular and special television shows; and at this distance I can't separate one from another. Who broadcast Groucho Marx as Ko-Ko in THE MIKADO? Nets: levin@bbn.com or {...}!bbn!levin POTS: (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool Date: 4 May 90 13:34:38 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <7163@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes: > I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about > inexpensive punch-down tools. I think I've located one, though. > Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but > they also offer a less expensive one for $16. > My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool? It is a > Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT. They warn that it is only suitable for > occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and > therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block. Is this a > serious risk? I have a selection of punch down tools. I have the cheapie S66MT type, I have the Harris/Dracon D714 and I have the Harris/Dracon D814. The S66MT is spring loaded - sort of. There is another tool I have that is not spring loaded, which is obsolete. If you only intend to make one termination every six months and would rather not use your needle-nose pliers to do that, get the S66MT. If you are considering punching down at least one 25 pair cable worth of connections, get a real punch-down tool. The D714 has a nice spring in the handle. It does require a screwdriver to change the blade from insert to insert & cut. But the best tool is the D814. It has manual blade change - no screwdriver needed - and it has adjustable punch pressure. It is a far better tool than the D714. Price between the two is about the same. But my opinion is, if you are going to buy a tool, get the best. Your work will be of better quality and the tool will last forever. If you were located near me, I would invite you over for a test drive. After a couple of terminations with the cheapie tool, you would happily pay $125 for the Dracon D814. Spend the money, your hand and blood pressure will thank you. My Alltel Catalogue lists the D714 and D814 at $45.40. The S66MT is $14.13. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution Date: 4 May 90 04:44:21 GMT Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) >(It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA. >D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude >less. A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender. LL >seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond >reality.) I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has not, here is the poop on the relay. It was made by Leeds & Northrop and was used as a galvo null detector in the old "sexy crab" type stripchart recorder. (I'm not 100% sure that this is an accurate discription of the instrument; I've only seen one at a distance but this is what I've been told.) It is a dual-coil, magnetically biased relay with micrometer thread adjustable armature gap, spring bias and contact gap. It is physically a bit smaller than a standard plugin control relay. I got it back out tonight in order to measure the characteristics. Unfortunately, I damaged the windings on one coil when I threw it back in the relay box so I could only measure one coil. Again, using my trusty Keithely digital picoammeter, I determined that the relay pulls in at about 220 uamps with only one coil energized. Corrispondingly, with both coils energized, the pullin current would be around 110 uamps. Not a bad guess on my part! This relay is, of course, simply a typical example of instrumentation galvo relays. I have other relays that will actuate on as little as 10 uamps. These consist of compact metermovements with the pointer acting as a contact instead of an indicator. Most anyone who has some instrumentation experience will have seen many of these. They used to be quite popular (not necessarily in these sensitivity ranges) for process control. I have a nice one here that takes a thermocouple input and is an alarming pyrometer. I use it to control my bar-b-que. Finally, and I hope this is the last word on the subject, regarding the suggestions that I fabricate another infinity transmitter and send it to some peer review person. While that idea is intriguing, especially the suggestion that Lippman pay me for my time. At my standard consulting rate of $120/hour, I could enjoy the money. But some practicality has to enter into the equation. When we get right down to it, Lippman, this spat, comp.dcom.telecom, and the Usenet in general rate as pretty trivial in my life. Idle entertainment. It's fun to debate and useful in that it keeps the skills sharp. But treating the net as reality is a whole 'nuther matter. SO... This is the end of this issue as far as I'm concerned. Those of you that think my experiment and historical account are accurate get my thanks and appreciation. Those that believe Lippman.. well... Enough said.. John concerned John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 08:46:35 -0700 From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. D'Arsonval meter relays do exist. They are little used nowadays, since most modern plant instrumentation is digital, but I have seen one and two-pole "meter-relays" in service. They have some small contacts on the indicator pointer, and these are usually capable of carrying a few mA to switch external relays. One very common past usage of such things are setpoint controllers on thermocouple indicators for furnaces and such. They are not small. - Brian ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 4 May 90 08:39 PST Subject: Re: Fax Directories Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Phony invoices for Telex directories has been a telecommunications cottage industry for some time. For some strange reason it seems centered in Amsterdam, Vaduz Liechstenstein and BEVERLY HILLS!. There are several orders of sleaziness from not publishing anything to actually publishing some sort of a listing and thus being marginally legit. On the other hand... in the US the concept of one domestic (Western Union) and a limited set of International Record Carriers for Telex is a dead duck. No Telex directory can claim to be more legit than any other although Jaeger and Waldmann (Switzerland) publishes the most authoritative version. Fax directories, as mentioned, are difficult to assemble as any phone line can be used by "normal" (Groups I - III) fax machines. More than junk faxes the threat to most people is that many Fax salespeople used the directories as "lead listings" particularly if you listed the type of machine you had. This was pretty common before Group III machines simplified inter-operability. Re the phony invoices, >someone< must be paying them, the flow shows no signs of slowing down. An associated scam is the fax paper supplier, one casual call and pallets of paper appear at your doorstep... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 21:10:10 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit I travel quite a bit for business. Most hotels that cater to business travelers 'stick it' to business traveler on their phone calls. Its bad enough when you get charged as much as $1.20 per 800# call (Washington DC), but one time I was in Sunrise Florida and I dialed 8-800-877-8000 instead of 8-1-800-877-8000. I eventually got a recording ... and a charge for $3.92 on my bill for my mistake. I obviously use the # key whenever possible. There was one surprise in all of this. I stayed at Nendell's in Portland OR, just outside of Beaverton. They were running a promotion. All local calls were free, and "One hour of long distance per day, free". They had just signed up with "some mystery carrier" who's name I didn't recognize. I suspect they were a reseller. The deal was that the front desk would subtract off the cost of up to one hour of calls each day you were there, but there was no carry over. So for my three nights there, I got "four hours" of calls. I deliberatedly placed some of the calls during the day to see what they would do with them. I used a stopwatch to make sure I didn't go over my alloted time. All charges were backed off my bill at checkout. The hotel has a ski lodge atmosphere, with most of the rooms wrapped around a central pond. The restaraunt was nice, and the room bill was under $40/night. Ol' Conrad ought to think about that. Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharges Date: 4 May 90 16:23:49 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey As I was told by MCI Customer Service (when I called about something else), the notification will take place in your next billing, and all people billed after 5/1 will have their bills adjusted to remove the surcharge from calls made before the billing date. Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #315 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08409; 5 May 90 20:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31055; 5 May 90 19:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06121; 5 May 90 18:09 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 17:12:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #316 BCC: Message-ID: <9005051712.ab01392@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 17:10:59 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 316 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-Over Requests [David Tamkin] Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [David Tamkin] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Brian Kantor] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Mike Riddle] Re: What is 660 at NY Tel? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos [Robert Gutierrez] Re: Ring Amplification [Irving Wolfe] Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? [Ken Abrams] Re: NC and GA Dialing [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 May 90 18:09 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-Over Requests In an article from misc.consumers reposted in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 309, Charlie Shub described the procedure when his wife worked for > Pioneer TeleTechnologies, a company that solicits conversions to MCI. > Contact is made by a sales person and if the client agrees to change > over, there is a verification step performed before any changeover is > ordered. Specifically, the verification section calls the client and > assures the client really did understand the change and really did agree > to it. Only after that step occurs is the change order sent in. Let's accept Mr. Shub's description on faith. Still, MCI believes the solicitation firm unquestioningly and the customer's telco believes MCI unquestioningly. Is Pioneer TeleTechnologies the only firm doing this for MCI, though? Perhaps there are no complaints from the customers reaffiliated by their telcos because Pioneer said so, but what about those whose supposed reaffiliation requests were reported by solicitation firms with looser controls or looser ethics than Pioneer has? A few months back a TELECOM Digest or comp.dcom.telecom reader who truly did want to change to MCI reported that MCI said, "You'll have to tell your telephone company yourself. They don't believe us any more." Somebody out there was not as pure as Ms. Shub (if she uses Charlie's surname) and her coworkers at Pioneer TeleTechnologies. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 00:05 EST From: David Tamkin <0004261818@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) Joseph C. Pistritto wrote in volume 10, issue 306: | I had tried to get AT&T to [bill long-distance charges directly to a | bank charge card, not counting their own] earlier, while living in | the States, and could never get it done. Does anyone out there know | if this option is in fact available to US resident subscribers? I don't know about AT&T, but MCI will gladly bill your usage to VISA or MasterCard. My MCI billing goes straight to MasterCard, and it saves me a check and a stamp every month. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 3 May 90 16:41:02 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. We had several US Robotic Courier 1200 modems that would dial a * when sent a # and vice versa. Later firmware corrected that problem, but I found that USR didn't have that listed as a bug that their firmware upgrade would fix! I suspect someone in USR engineering just noticed the problem and repaired the software before anyone had gotten a problem logged as a trouble call. Really confused our long-distance billing system here! - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 May 90 09:20:29 EDT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Reply-to: Mike.Riddle@p0.f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: Inns if Court, Papillion, Ne. Recent articles have commented on the four "extra" (A,B,C,D) keys on a 16-key keypad. Several contributors have talked about telco use in selective signalling/operator unique functions, and at least one mentioned radio-control circuits. There was also one mention of the DOD Autovon usage. The physical keys are labelled: FO - Flash Override F - Flash I - Immediate P - Priority and used for multi-level precedence preemption. The switch is programmed to accept only certain precedence levels from particular lines. If, for example, a typical "four-wire" user hit FO nnn-nnnn, they would get a recording to the effect of "You have dialed an unauthorized precedence level. Please place your call again using the appropriate precedence or contact your operator for assistance." The F, I and P all cause the switch to search for open paths to the destination, in accordance with a preplanned routing scheme (at least they used to. It's been a while.) If all paths are busy, they pick the lowest possible call to preempt. (The lowest level, Routine, has no associated key -- the default condition.) The FO, on the otherhand, is a "ruthless preempt." It finds the quickest possible path, checks the usage, and if it isn't another FO it's history. Even if it was a Flash call. At one point in my career I was authorized FO (under certain conditions, of course. There's a well-defined protocol, probably honored more in the breach than the observance, over which precedence is appropriate in a given situtation.) I never could get over my amazement at picking up a phone on a airplane, dialing FO nnn-nnnn, and having 37 phones ringing even as I dialed the last digit. It was also amusing as virtually everyone else on the airplane had at least one of their circuit paths preempted (assuming calls in progress), as the ground entry point reached out and seized what it needed. Just as an aside, does anyone who knows and can comment say whether there is a similar capability in the "civilian" world? [Note I did NOT ask for particulars that would help a "phreaker." I'm merely curious whether the capability exists.] Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3 * Origin: [1:285/27@metronet] The Inns of Court (402)593-1192 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Mike.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: 4-MAY-1990 02:47:39.72 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: What is 660 at NY Tel? Hi- In response to the question raised about dialing "660" in New York City: From what I know it used to be ringback, and probably still is. You used to dial 660, waited for a dial tone, dialed "112" or "2#" (but NOT "*2", which SHOULD be "112", but anyhow..), waited for a second dial tone, flashed the hookswitch, got a "ringback tone", and hung up. Very much like the 99x ringbacks they have in New England Tel and Southern New England Tel territory (ie, 99x+your last 4 digits), but different digit format. They changed this about a year and a half ago (or more, I tried it a year and a half ago and that was the first time I noticed that it no longer worked), so I dunno what the new code to replace "2#" is now. You can also dial 660 then "4#", and this will hang your phone for a while. About 1 min or so on a Crossbar, 4-6 mins on a 1/1AESS, and I dunno if it even works on a DMS-100/200 or 5ESS. (I don't think there are and Step-by-Steps in the NYC area where 660 would work, so I'm not sure if this would work on a SxS if one exists there...) There are lots of other codes you can dial to get "weird" recordings, such as 99999 (lots of "9"s) will get you " Your call can not be completed as dialed. Check the number, and dial again. If you are calling a number in the 212 area, dial again w/o using the 212 area code or ask your operator to help you", but this works even if you are NOT calling from the 212 area. By the way, the "dial tone" you get after the 660 isn't a "real" dial tone, ie, you cant make calls over it for free or anything, nor can you dial 958 for ANI (the thing that reads you your number?), nor "0" for operator, nor 10xxx/950 codes, etc. It seems to be just for test purposes and nothing else. I've been meaning to try to hack out the new ringback number through 660, but as I have 3 lines down in New York, it's not really worth it for the short time that I spend there...(I can just call myself!) -Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to lcoals...!! :-) ) ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos Date: 4 May 90 06:54:16 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC David Tamkin writes in Volume 10, Issue 309, Message 7 of 13: > John Levine wrote in volume 10, issue 300: > | MCI said that they couldn't [put multiple originating phone numbers on > | the same long-distance account to share one minimum and to be figured > | together for volume discounts], since Massachusetts and New Jersey are > | in different billing regions, Yes, this is true (I started in Customer Service). > MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and > mine, which are in bordering rate centers in the same city, onto the > same account because they were not at the same address. What a bunch of sh....(err)...I mean, No, this is not true. MCI has had problems in the past with RBOC's rejecting PIC requests with different locations on the PIC request (PIC = Primary Interexchange Carrier). So, they just reject the PIC request and the customer keeps on calling without dialling the 700 test number, thinking he/she is on MCI, and ... oops ... what's this AT&T bill!!! Do this: Call MCI. Establish the account with the primary phone (and the address it's to be sent to). Wait a week ... this will give the billing center time to generate the PIC request tape to the RBOC with just that one number. Call back Customer Service and tell them you want to add a number (reason: you got a second phone in the house). The rep will say the phone is not in the local area (MCI's computer prints a warning on the bottom of the screen "Number entered is not in the same area" or something like that...). You say: That's the number they gave me. They say: OK, and hit enter on their 3270 terminal and volia, it's added to the database. The billing center will create another PIC change request, and yes, the RBOC will "reject" the request, but it will *NOT* be rejected from MCI's billing database. The reject will be on MCI's OCIS system (On-line Customer Information System), but it's just a transaction indicator. If you call back, the rep will mention this, but just say it works fine and you dialed the 700 test number ... blah, blah, blah. Oh yes, *YOU* have to call the local telco on the *2nd* line and tell them you want MCI on it. Since the address won't match, the telco won't take the PIC change request from MCI's tape. Do this *AFTER* you call MCI to add the 2nd line on the account, or the local telco will generate an account request to MCI, with the name and address of the telephone number included, and you'll be stuck back at square one. Have fun. Robert Gutierrez NSI Network Operations Center/NASA Ames Research Center. Moffett Feild, California. ------------------------------ From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Ring Amplification Date: 4 May 90 01:56:53 GMT Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors In article <7159@accuvax.nwu.edu> pwherry@mwunix.mitre.org.UUCP (Phillip Wherry) writes: >My guess is that this topic is not of overwhelming interest; send >e-mail replies directly to me. Nonsense! Sure we're interested, or we wouldn't have been reading your posting in the first place. Not only that, you'd probably filter all the not-quite-relevant answers that wouldn't mean much to your problem but would really do wonders with mine out of the summary! (After all, they weren't relevant.) What I want, is a device that would detect incoming ring and generate enough ring power (off a 110 VAC outlet) to make something REALLY loud go off (only as long as ring is on the line), without presenting much load at all to the line. In fact, a near-zero REN would be ideal, because there are already too many conventional telephone bells on this line. (It's a single Panasonic key system extension being used to signal "incoming call" in 3 different buildings; anyone wanting the call dials [or hits a button programmed to mean] 4111, to grab the call ringing on extension 111.) There's also an answering machine/phone combo on this extension, but it is normally answered by the appropriate person hitting 4111 elsewhere. My problem is we are overloading the more-or-less 5 REN capacity of the Panasonic, and need more. Irving Wolfe irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 Happy Man Corp. 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? Date: 3 May 90 15:58:29 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <6963@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two >kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital. This is in addition to the >other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits. The local Telco will (in most cases) deliver ANYTHING to you on a T1 span if you want it that way. I assume that this is what they mean by "digital DID". In this case, you provide the terminal equipment (or an appropriate digital switch) to de-mux the T1 line into individual circuits. >He claims that the reason that they can't get the DID line working for >me is that we ordered "digital DID" when we really wanted "analog >DID". I told him flat out that I thought (and at least one >knowledgable friend o mine thought) that this was a crock. Obviously somebody screwed up the order. It could have been the person in your company that placed it but it is probably more likely that it got hosed up somewhere inside the Telco. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NC and GA Dialing Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 4 May 90 12:21:18 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <7202@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >"Customers making calls within the 912 area code may also use the 912 area >code when dialing, although it is not required." >Huh? Presumably this means you're allowed to dial 1-912-NNX-XXXX when all you need is 1-NNX-XXXX. On the other hand, if you live in Attleboro MA or neigboring towns in Rhode Island, your local calling area includes some towns in the other state which are in a different NPA and LATA, even though all are served by New England Tel. The phone book specifically says that if you dial a local call with 1 + the area code, rather than just the 7 digits, your call may get routed to your long distance carrier and incur a toll charge. So much for consistent dialing. I presume this is because there are still some obsolete SxS exchanges in small towns down there. Would crossbar have the same problem, or is it smart enough to understand multiple ways to dial the same number? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #316 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08612; 5 May 90 20:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31055; 5 May 90 19:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06121; 5 May 90 18:10 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 17:46:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #317 BCC: Message-ID: <9005051746.ab11873@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 17:45:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 317 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Maureen Behof] Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Randal Schwartz] Re: Running Out of Phone Numbers [Carl Moore] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Stephen Tell] Re: London Code Changes [John Pope] Re: London 071/081 [Scott D. Green] Re: DTMF and Other Phone Tones [John Higdon] Re: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) [Wm. Kucharski] Re: New Illinois Bell Services [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maureen Behof Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification Date: 4 May 90 14:27:19 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me >about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code. This is a >"prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called"). >The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message. (I don't know how >it picked my office telephone number.) I too received an identical call at my home. After reading all the telemarketing scams in progress, I decided to call to see what this one was about. I was first asked what my two-character code was (mine was C2). Then I was asked what number I was called on. I gave him my number (I am sure I will live to regret this.) He then asked if I could take a four day trip to the Bahamas within the next two years (sure, who couldn't). Then I was asked if I was a card holder of either Visa or MasterCard. Again yes. Now, they wanted to know my number so they could verify my card was good. I told the person I was speaking to I would not give my cardnumber until he answered some questions. He agreed. The company name is United Telemarketing. When asked who they were affiliated with, the reply was United Telemarketing. When asked how they got my number to call, he replied that they randomly take an area code and phone number, and begin subtracting one digit and dialing. I then told him I suppose this means that whomever answers the phone and is stupid enough to call this 800 number 'wins' this trip. He says no, only a few do (sure). When I asked if I would now be deluged with telemarketing calls now that I gave him my number, he said no (we'll see about that). My final question was if all this is on the up and up, as you are trying to assure me of, why do you want my credit card number? His reply was 'why did you call anyway? When I answered that I wanted to find out what the scam was, he said 'you b****', and hung up on me. I guess I'll never get that free trip to the Bahamas. ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Fri, 4 May 90 16:43:38 GMT In article <7227@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl (VLD/VMB) writes: | I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me | about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code. This is a | "prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called"). | The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message. (I don't know how | it picked my office telephone number.) I got one that was a 900 number. The mechanized voice asked me to press "1" if my phone number was "six" "four" "three" "...". How did it know that? "Called party identification?" :-) Since the number matched (what technology), I pressed "one", and it told me that I had a chance to win a travel package to one of seven or eight neat places, but I had to call back before "nine" "fourteen" "tonight" at 1-900-don't-remember. (This was at 8:59, so it looks like a computed figure fifteen minutes into the future.) After repeating the number four times, they say in the vocal equivalent of small print: "$6 per minute will be charged to your phone bill ... your call will take approximately two minutes". If I failed to call back by "nine" "fourteen" "tonight", my chance at winning was automatically "erased from the computer" (their words). Wow. That means they're bilking about $12 to $18 out of each dupe that hurridly calls back. Sheesh. On top of that, they violated Oregon law by not identifying themselves within the first thirty seconds of the call, but that's another matter. If I knew who to complain to, or how to followup on it, I would. But, not having remembered the phone number, it's a little tough. Now I know what those people feel like that beat up on ATMs for telling them what they don't want to hear. /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 10:36:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Running Out of Phone Numbers To summarize earlier postings: When area codes of the N0X/N1X form run out, area codes will have to generalize to the NXX form. There was posted to this Digest a while back a list of the first area codes which are to be used when this happens, and they were all of the NN0 form, prompting a suggestion that some area codes may be able to avoid changes in dialing require- ments by not allowing NN0 prefixes within them. But watch out if you end up in the first NNX area code! There were occasional postings to this Digest about problems in reaching new areacodes and prefixes, including one from me which suggested that some operators here on the East Coast did not know about N0X/N1X prefixes (in use in Los Angeles area) until New York City had to prepare for such prefixes in 1980. The first NNX area code I saw listed was 260, so when it comes into use, watch out for some people trying to "correct" it to 206. ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: 4 May 90 18:49:59 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <7175@accuvax.nwu.edu> Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) writes: >_do_ print the "access code" on your national version, so your >"national" version for the US 1 npa nxx nnnn But in the U.S., this isn't quite correct, because we have the option of using a '1' or a '0' before the area code. This is why I feel that a '1' should never be included except when indicating the North American country code or for a toll-free number (which can not have special billing). Including the '1' all the time starts to make people believe that it is part of the area code. Then when they want to call with special billing, they dial 01-NPA-XXX-XXXX and wonder why the call goes to Fiji (Ahh, that explains the commercials :-). Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street Date: 4 May 90 20:28:19 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article <7252@accuvax.nwu.edu> goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 313, Message 4 of 6 >In article <7164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HAMER@ruby.vcu.edu (ROBERT M. >HAMER) writes: >> "Gregory G. Woodbury" writes: >> > Dialing in Durham to the extended calling area is still only >> >7D. All other calls are 1+NPA+7D. Duke University, embedded in >> >Durham's GTE satrapy, is not participating in the extended calling >> >area and all calls beyond the traditional local area are 1+NPA+7D. >> >Makes for a confusing situation when dialing Chapel Hill from home >> >versus calling from Duke. The ability to use N0/1X exchange numbers >> >will only set back the need for another area code in NC for 4 years! >Chapel Hill is now served by Southern Bell. Apparently, it and Duke >followed the same basic plan in divesting themselves of their telcos. UNC Chapel Hill has Centrex service from Southern Bell, with 5-digit dialing on campus since they use parts of several prefixes. More than one of those prefixes also has numbers off campus, I think. This is obviously a remnant of the days you mention when UNC ran the whole system. Duke, on the other hand still runs its own phone system. They have a 5ESS as their PBX, with the 919-684, 681, and 660 prefixes all to themselves. Dialing on campus is 7 digits, as are local Durham numbers. Calls beyond Durham are 1+NPA+7d, as I think is the case from off campus when you haven't subscribed to an extended calling area. (I haven't lived there since they went from 1+7D to 1+NPA+7D for long distance calls). Duke also does their own least-cost routing and bulk long-distance service, so your bill from Duke Telecom says "BlueNet long distance." Last I heard most things were routed through SoutherNet. 10XXX is not available. The one 0+ inter-lata calling card call I've made from campus showed up as AT&T on my bill. Their 5ESS is connected via fiber to GTE. They offer call-waiting as standard on student lines. They're actively marketing voice mail to faculty, staff, and students. They had ISDN sets for people in the telephone system office, but I don't know if or when they're planning to offer that to everyone. >If I could magically redraw the telco map, I would wish for one big >calling area, served by a single company with a single phonebook, for >the whole Triangle area. But barring that, even a reduction to just >two areas (Wake County, and Durham & Orange Counties) would be a >blessing. Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening. Unfortunatly, I don't see any of this happening either. Steve Tell tell@wsmail.cs.unc.edu CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. +1 919 968 1792 ------------------------------ From: john pope Subject: Re: London Code Changes Date: 4 May 90 07:54:29 GMT Reply-To: john pope Organization: British Telecom Research Labs Just a reminder folks: The 6 of May is nigh. John Pope e-mail jpope@axion.bt.co.uk (...mcvax!ukc!axion!jpope) 'phone UK +44 473 646651 Royal Mail RT3114, BTRL Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH, Suffolk, UK in person Room G24b SSTF ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 11:05 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: London 071/081 It was reported in the Phila. Inquirer yesterday that British Telecom is using billboards to be sure that Londoners are aware of the official cutover on Sunday: "071 for Shirley in Temple, 081 for Eric in Clapton" "081 for Robert in Mitchum, 071 for Burt in Lancaster Gate" "071 for Whitney in Euston [ouch! - sg], 081 for Harry in Enfield" (a London comedian). "071 for James in Bond Street, 081 for Kew" (Bond's gadget maker). scott ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: DTMF and Other Phone Tones Date: 4 May 90 13:47:54 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Ray Dueland writes: > I've left out some important details, so it would be impossible to > make use of the above information. I just find it fascinating that > there are weak spots in the phone system that can be exploited. One of the major details is that "blue boxing" hasn't worked for about fifteen years. Ever since Ma Bell went to common-channel out-of-band signaling, blue boxing has become nothing more than a phone-phreak's memory. Yes you may still hear MF tones in the background, and indeed, they are still used widely for inter-office signaling, but the key element, inband supervision control (the infamous 2600 Hz) is missing. If you can't dump the call mid-stream and end up looking into the mouth of an MF receiver, there is nothing you can do. > It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly. Pacific > Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS > systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated. Modern ESS > phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take > appropriate action. This is utter baloney. The MF frequencies, including those for all digits, Code 11, Code 12, KP, KP2 (there were damn few of us who knew what that was for), and ST have been listed in every edition of _Reference Data For Radio Engineers_ (Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc., New York) since 1956. Since there is precious little you can do with MF tones anymore, I'm sure Pac*Bell couldn't care less. (I'd list the frequencies here, but you can go out and get your own damn copy of this widely available book.) Isn't it amazing how people stumble onto "new" things that have been dead for years? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: William Kucharski Subject: Re: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont CO Date: Fri, 4 May 90 20:48:35 GMT I've got a Hayes Smartmodem 2400 at home, and it does dial the DTMF tone for ABCD, e.g. "ATDT ABCD" sends four (unfamiliar sounding) tones. | ARPA: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM | William Kucharski | | uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | Solbourne Computer, Inc. | = The opinions above are mine alone and NOT those of Solbourne Computer, Inc. = ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 19:06 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: New Illinois Bell Services In volume 10, issue 314, Steven King lists some new Advanced Custom Calling features announced by Illinois Bell, including | ILLINOIS BELL(R) DISTINCTIVE RINGING. Lets you know that someone special | is calling even before you pick up the phone. You can program up to | ten numbers. The implication of "you can program up to ten numbers" is that it is different from the distinctive ringing discussed in the Digest recently. In the other form, your line is assigned several incoming telephone numbers. The rhythm of ringing (or Call Waiting beep) that you hear depends on which of your incoming numbers the caller dialed. Unless you also have Call Waiting, if you are on an incoming call dialed into any of your phone numbers or on an outgoing call, calls dialed into your line's aliases receive a busy signal. I get the feeling that Illinois Bell is offering a different version. Your line is still assigned only one incoming telephone number. The rhythm of ringing or of Call Waiting beep that you hear depends on the number *from which* the caller is dialing. If your SO calls from a payphone, your telephone doesn't ring out the love call that you hear when he or she dials from home or work. On the other hand, you do get more specific identification of a caller when one of the special sequences rings (instead of just "it's to Sue's number" or "it's to Jack's number") and telephone numbers don't get used up so fast. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #317 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12831; 5 May 90 21:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16639; 5 May 90 20:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31055; 5 May 90 19:16 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 18:51:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #318 BCC: Message-ID: <9005051851.ab08278@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 18:50:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 318 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: What Voice Mail System is Best? [Mike Gilbert] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [S. Forrette] Re: Fax Directories [Larry Lippman] Re: `cu' Question [Larry Lippman] Re: Directory Assistance [Carl Moore] Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [John Higdon] Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Max Southall] Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Mark Earle] Re: Alphabetical Friviolity [Will Robertson] Re: Touch Tone ABCD [Mark Earle] Collect Calls to DID or Any Other Number For That Matter [James Van Houten] Sprint / Sprint Plus [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS Date: Sat, 5 May 90 05:20:32 GMT HAMER@ruby.vcu.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 306, Message 6 of 11 > > The RTP exchanges are provided by GTE but are "local" from most of the R/D/CH area (including Creedmore and Apex, etc.) There has been a lot of activity recently here in providing extended area coverages from various towns to various others and perhaps in making the majority of the capital region LATA into an extended "local" zone. GTE and SBT do have a "usage sensitive service" that extends the "local" calling area, but it really just a metered service plan. > Correct, the State PUC encouraged the University to divest itself of the CHTC which was bid for by both SBT and GTE. SBT won by throwing a very attractive rate on LD for the University (This was pre-divestiture). > It is still much the same or worse. Chapel Hill has annexed part of Durham Co. and Durham City has annexed into several parts of Orange County (and Raleigh decided to get into the act as well). The result is a very gerrymandered political boundary and the telephone boundaries were left pretty much alone. It is fairly easy to get FTX lines if you are near a border, but the measured service plans are cheaper in the long run. > Telpac (or TelPACK as we called it at NCSU ;-) was an early corporate network that the UNC system had SBT develop for them. It is a little more sophisticated now and includes all sorts of extensions all over the state and is still the target of student cracking. >Another Chapel Hill particularity was that all Chapel Hill prefixes >started with 9 (e.g., 933-, 942-, 968-), but one had to only dial the >last 6 digits (e.g., 42-5432) would connect you with 942-5432. Chapel Hill is still only using 9nn exchange codes, but the University has three with the rest of the area sharing five others. Since it is now also driven by all-digital switches, the old fewer digits tricks no longer work. It is universal 7D or 1+NPA+7D now. I have a rather long description of the dialing plan from Durham to the region in preparation if you want it. Includes exchange numbers and all sorts of trivia. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [Moderator's Note: Anyone who wants a copy of your material can, I assume, contact you directly for a copy when it is finished. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:28:36 edt From: Mike Gilbert Subject: Re: What Voice Mail System is Best? Organization: Software Leverage, Inc., Arlington, MA >We are trying to select a Voice Mail system for our company. Knowing >nothing about them, we would like to hear from satisfied users. >Has your company implemented Voice Mail? Are you happy with the >system? What system did you pick? Why? Our company has about 500 >employees and we are trying to figure out the *right* system (argh) :-) I'm looking for voicemail recommendations, too, but for a smaller operation. I need a capacity to handle two or three different telephone lines, with twenty or more mailboxes. Any recommendations or dis-recommendations greatly appreciated. Mike Gilbert jng@sli.com Software Leverage ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:38:41 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Organization: University of California, Berkeley It was mentioned that the directory was prepared in strict collating sequence. Of course, there are common exceptions, such as listing "St. John's" as if it were "Saint John's" or "20th Century" under 'T'. But look at this one: In the June 1989/90 Oakland (CA) White Pages, "H's Lordships Restaurant" is listed bewteen "His & Hers Painting" and "Hisa, Litsu". I had always assumed that "H's" stood for "His", but thought I'd have a problem when I had to look it up a couple of months ago. But, it was right there where I first looked. Since I can't imagine that some general algorithm would collate "H's" as "His", mustn't there be some sort of way for the business office to force an alternate placement? On an unrelated note, I once tried to find a business called "AAA Foto & Postal" with Directory Assistance. I didn't know it was spelled with an 'F', and neither did the operator. Businesses should consider that their name, no matter how clever, determines whether or not their customers can find them. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Fax Directories Date: 4 May 90 23:02:03 EDT (Fri) From: Larry Lippman In article <7226@accuvax.nwu.edu> nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org writes: > Anyone with a telex machine usually receives one or more mailings a > year from publishers of "unofficial" telex directories. > ... > The solicitations often closely resemble invoices, and I'm sure some > of these pseudo-invoices get paid purely by accident. The "unofficial" > directory publishers are presumably acting within the law (the > pseduo-invoices admit to not being invoices), but they're sleazy. My favorite one is "Telex/TWX Directory Publishers" of Hollywood, CA. An uninformed person has to look pretty hard to realize that this outfit has nothing to do with Western Union. My organization gets an average of one phony telex directory invoice per month. Not only that, but we get various solicitations from all over the world. Two of the most regular are to buy suits direct from a tailor in Hong Kong, and to buy lottery tickets in the West German national lottery from a third party broker. Those lottery tickets are damned expensive, too! Can anyone possibly be naive enough to send money to a firm in West Germany to buy lottery tickets - and expect to get anything back even if the ticket won? Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Subject: Re: `cu' Question Date: 4 May 90 23:14:49 EDT (Fri) From: Larry Lippman In article <7087@accuvax.nwu.edu> mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) writes: > Patrick, a dumb question --- and y'all are about the only *.nix guys I > correspond with. I use cu -lttya2 dir to get to a modem on a 386 w/sco > xenix. Just use ATDT to issue commands. Is there a standard way to > route the incoming text to a file for later review, using some variant > of piping or something? So far if so I've not looked in the correct > spot in the cubic feet of manuals! Thanks! While there is more than one method to accomplish what you are desire, the simplest is probably: cu -lttya2 | tee filename where both sides of the session are placed in the file "filename". Depending upon your system configuration and version of UNIX, you may then have to edit the file to strip an extraneous newline character. Using `vi' this can be done with: : % s / CTRL-V CTRL-M / / g (ignore spaces in the above, with CTRL-V and CTRL-M meaning the actual control characters). Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 11:26:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance The reason local directory assistance has been free from pay phones is that phone books are usually not available there. Has anyone in NY accounted for this? ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes Date: 4 May 90 13:21:17 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon David Tamkin writes: > Ameritech Mobile has two kinds of > Call Transfer: Immediate (unconditional forwarding until you enter the > deactivation code) and Busy/No Answer. They charge $2.00 a month for > each. Southwestern Bell's Cellular One in metropolitan Chicago > charges $2.00 total for a package that includes all three. The two Bay Area providers have come to the (enlightened, IMHO) conclusion that it is more profitable to throw in ALL custom calling, including voice mail, at no extra charge, at least on contract customers. If the features are available, customers will use them and generate air time revenue. After all, it costs the providers absolutely nothing to provide everyone with custom calling, and the monthly charges are peanuts compared to the air time that is used when most features are activated. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Max Southall Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:07:30 GMT Without a NAM programmer (the NAM is actually a PROM) I managed to reprogram my Novatel unit for use with BellSouth mobility, after I moved from Toronto to Miami. What I did was trace the circuitry on the phone's CPU board to determine the address of the PROM, then popped the EPROMS and looked at the references to those addresses with an 8080 disassembler (the unit uses an 8085 CPU). With the help of the manufacturer's engineering department, which gave me the code interpretations for the NAM programmer manufacturers, I created software to make the transformations. I then programmed new EPROMS, with the info stored in unused address space in the EPROMS, and with all address references to the NAM (PROM) changed to addresses in the EPROMS where the new info is stored! (And if any thieves steal my phone (common in Miami) good luck trying to rip off the phone company - changing the NAM WON'T do it!!!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 08:12:52 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone Well -- all the recent discussion about cellular reprogramming prompted me to get the RS portable. I would encourage more stories about folks reprogramming, with blessing of providors of service, or at least non-hassles, to avoid the outragious roamer charges. Planning on the same thing, since I am based in Corpus Christi, but regularly travel to San Antonio, and want coverage w/out roamer rates in both cities. Having citable references and examples of "they're doing it there" help. I haven't got the phone yet -- gave 'em a layaway amount till next pay, to get it at sale price and make sure that they had one when I got the $. Will post a summary of charges here, from what is being posted, we're toward the low side of the range. | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | [Moderator's Note: Good for you! I think you will probably love the phone when you get it. At the greatly reduced prices for the CT-301 being offered by Radio Shack these days, I can't understand why more people aren't walking around with them. PT] ------------------------------ From: willr@pro-europa.cts.com (Will Robertson) Subject: Re: Alphabetical Frivolity Date: 5 May 90 08:16:37 GMT In-Reply-To: message from 0002909785@mcimail.com Of COURSE gas stations have fathers! What do you think oil rigs are? =) Will UUCP: crash!pro-europa!willr ARPA: crash!pro-europa!willr@nosc.mil INET: willr@pro-europa.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 08:09:59 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Touch Tone ABCD Patrick: I have received about eight requests via mail for info on modifying dialers to make ABCD. Since this seems to be of interest, I'll prepare a short article the first part of next week and submit it. There are only about four major TT generator IC's, and I have the references at work. Another interesting variant for control is to use a chip like the SSI-202 (Radio Shack sells this as their TT decoder IC) and make the decoder and your encoder reference some odd frequency by changing the reference crystal. "Standard" is 1 Mhz xtals; 1.1 or .99 Mhz shift things so it still "sounds normal, but un-modified encoders won't work your decoder. I'll cover this and some real-world uses. Mark | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | [Moderator's Note: I'm sure many folks will be looking forward to your article. Having those additional four tones available for use would be an excellent way to add some security to passwords on 'bank by phone' services, among other things. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 04 May 90 02:30:02 EDT From: James Van Houten <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: Collect Calls to DID or Any Other Number For That Matter There was a question asked about calling collect to 900 and DID numbers. I used to have the number (301) 568-2646 and I was always getting collect calls from people that were trying to reach the old owners of the number. I called my local telco and they made my line deny collect calls. Yes that is right. When I tried to call home from Seattle, WA collect the local AT&T operator said "Sir, That number does not accept collect calls." So it is possible. For anyone in the Bell Atlantic service area call your business office for details. Also my voice mail box is (202) 917-2296 and I have tried to call it collect to no avail. I just tried to call my Voice Mail thru Sprint and MCI and they get messages on there screen that says that the number does not accept collect calls. James Van Houten 4272229@mcimail.com (202) 917-2296 (collect ;-) ) KA3TTU@N4QQ ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint / Sprint Plus Date: Fri, 04 May 90 08:16:12 -0400 From: Steve Elias Sure enough, when my Sprint account was switched from Sprint to Sprint Plus, their billing tried to hose me out of of $8.00 minimum charge even though the first billing period was not a full month. I called them and the eliminated the entire charge without an argument. Later this month, now we'll see if my bill *really* indicates the credit... ; Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #318 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18115; 5 May 90 23:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07646; 5 May 90 22:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad21534; 5 May 90 21:20 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 21:00:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #319 BCC: Message-ID: <9005052100.ab03151@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 21:00:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 319 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Service Observing Activities of Telcos [Macy Hallock] IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's [John Bruner] Legislation Regulating COCOTs & AOSs [IEEE Spectrum via Michael Katzmann] Minitel and On-line Phone Books: Legal in the US? [John R. Galloway Jr.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri May 4 12:02:52 1990 Subject: Service Observing Activities of Telcos Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <7136@accuvax.nwu.edu>: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 305, Message 3 of 11 >In article <6937@accuvax.nwu.edu> douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas >Mason) writes: >> There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By >> using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone >> conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer >> satisfaction." >> Whoa, what a stipulation, huh? >I suspect your contract with the local operating company has similar >wording. I also suspect that this only refers to calls you make on the >AT&T card, not your local phone. Hmmm ... all this sounds similar to the "service observing" problems the telcos have had in the past. Telephone companies are very interested in the grade of service they provide to their customers. This includes several factors: dial tone, sound quality, call setup time, reorders, busy tones, noise, etc. This information is difficult to obtain by just looking at the dry traffic statistics spit out by call processing equipment (ticketers, CAMA, AMA, etc). In fact, many of the possible malfunctions that can occur simply do not show up on the normal traffic outputs. The only real way to get complete information is to listen to the calls as they process through the network. (When I was faced with troubleshooting a complex customer problem, I would often have to monitor the lines and trunks involved until I heard a call fail. The call progress tones and other noises often helped me find the problem.) The telco traffic department can obtain information using some low technology equipment: Special tape recorders with line scanning equipment are hooked up somewhere in the switching chain to observe the calls. Typically these are not tied to specific customer lines, but rather to equipment common to a group of lines (know what a first selector is in a SXS office?). These recorders only record the first 45 seconds or so of a call: just enough to allow determination of the dispostion of a call. They are never used to record an entire call; it is only the setup time and first few seconds that are useful, anyway. These tapes are then taken away to the traffic study department. This is a group of trained people who listen to each recorded call setup and tabulate the various types of call dispostions for use by the Traffic and Plant department. Note that although the dialed number is recorded on the tape, the calling number identity is not on the tapes. Remember, these are for statistical use, not the location of a specific line's problem. The results of these studies are immensely useful to the telco and directly influence the total quality of service involved. We would see the results of these studies in the form of orders to "clean up the office" and in other maintenance related activites. Traffic engineering would use the information to design the office for optimal operation as well. The telco management was very paranoid about this form of service observing. They knew this was a very controversial subject and engaged in the practice because it was so effective in assuring the overall quality of the services provided to the subscribers. We were told not to discuss this practice with _anyone_ including wives and law enforcement personnel. In fact, we were told that this was most likely an illegal practice, but it was the only way they knew to gain complete control over the quality of service provided. All the telco personnel I knew disliked this practice, but agreed it was both useful and ulimately benefited the customer, and kept their silence. The telco was _very_ careful about maintaining security over these tapes, and tried to keep them "blind" from the people who listened to them: each tape was serial numbered, but bore no markings about which exchange they came from. Only after the tapes' statistics were tabulated, did the information go to someone who had the listing showing where they came from. I was told the tapes were always promptly erased by the tabulators immediatly after they were scanned. This was all to ensure that no abuse of the possible contents (first few seconds of a conversation) occurred. We were told these tapes were _not_ for use by the Security Department and were not to be given to them (or anyone else) under any circumstances. (The Security Department had their own equipment and methods...) I am not aware of any abuse of these tapes ever occurring, either. Everyone involved took the practice and security issues very seriously and acted accordingly. Every telco I know of has used this type of service observation, and I suspect most still do. Before anyone starts flaming away, please understand that this is the only way to gather a _complete_ picture of the behaviour of a switching system, and is essential to the complete control of the quality of servce. I still know of no substitute for it. (How many of you can troubleshoot a modem connection with your modem speaker turned off?) It's still viewed as a necessary evil by all involved. Anyone you talk to at a telco or carrier will disavow knowledge (for good reason, given the paranoia of the uninformed public). Of course, service personnel still have to listen to trunks/lines routinely ... I still do every almost every day ... but we are all made aware of our responsibility to maintain privacy. (As I recall, a telco craftsman lost his job after going to the police about a murder conspiricy he overheard while servicing a line.) This may help explain the disclaimers that have been noticed by Digest readers. Note that several state PUC's have _not_ permitted the telcos to include this specific provision in their tariff due to fear of public paranoia. What usually happens is the inclusion of a more general disclaimer and limitation in the tariff. If you haven't read a telco general tariff, you may be surprised. They disclaim as much responsibilty as possible in them. Most large telco business offices are required to keep a (often outdated) copy available for public inspection. I have trapped the telco in violation of their own tariffs a few times, too ... interesting reading, really. The plot is little dry, though :-) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: Fri, 4 May 90 11:19:23 CDT From: John Bruner Subject: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's The May, 1990 issue of IEEE Spectrum contains an article on COCOT's (which they call PPP's (private pay phones): "New Pay Phones Hit the Street", pp. 28-31. (This issue of Spectrum has a picture of a dismemberred NYNEX payphone on the cover.) The editor's introduction says that the article in this issue is the first in a series on the changes in the telephone industry resulting from the breakup of AT&T. It's easy reading, and I learned a couple of things which I haven't seen in this forum. For instance, it lists the names of the big four COCOT suppliers (one of whom -- Intellicall, Inc -- has over 50% of the market) and states that AT&T has a COCOT product. I'd also not heard about "forward splashing" before, in which a non-local AOS connects a payphone customer to (e.g.) AT&T at the AOS's location rather than in at the payphone's site. If the AOS is a long distance from the COCOT this can significantly affect the long-distance rates AT&T charges. Also, I didn't know that Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have banned COCOT's. John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 90 15:52:11 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home The first in a series of articles on technical advances and changes in the regulatory environment in US telephony since the AT&T divestiture appears in the May edition of IEEE Spectrum. It is on the subject of pay-phones. Since there has been some discussion in TELECOM Digest on the subject of COCOTS, much of this article would be of interest to readers. Here is some of what it said: --------------- Some entrepreneurs in the new field, eager to recoup their investments as quickly as possible, charged exorbitant rates for credit-card calls. According to Consumer Action and the Telecommunications Research and Action Center, both consumer advocacy groups in Washington D.C., charges for AOS-assisted calls made with private pay phones were, in some cases, 500 [sic] times more expensive than comparable calls made via AT&T on a telephone company pay phone. As of Febuary 1990, the FCC had received 4000 written complaints from consumers regarding AOS-assisted calls, according to Thomas Wyatt of the commission's common carrier enforcement division. Complaints come in steadily at a rate of about 125-150 a month. Two bills before the Senate would force owners of PPPs to identify clearly, on every phone, which AOS the instument is connected to, and inform users of their right to choose a carrier other than the one the telephone is connected to. The phones would also have to display a telephone number for information on rates for long-distance calls. That legislation would also put an end to "blocking", a practice considered particularly nefarious by consumers, which makes it impossible for a pay phone user to access certain long-distance carriers, such as AT&T or US Sprint. In effect, it ensures that most calls are handled by whichever carrier the phone is connected (presubscribed) to, often an AOS. It occurs regularly in some regions, despite having been declared unlawful by the FCC in response to the formal complaints made in July 1988. Another common consumer complaint involves splashing, also known as forward splashing. It works like this: a person using a PPP in Kansas City, Mo., calls a number in St. Louis, using the services of an AOS. The caller asks to be transferred to AT&T, but does not know that the AOS is based in Dallas and that he or she is being connected to an AT&T operator there. Thus the AT&T operator, unaware of the situation and unable to rectify it in any case, bills for an interstate, long distance call from Dallas, rather than a relatively inexpensive call within Missouri. Unfortunately for the user, the situation does not become clear until the telephone bill arrives." Mainly because of unresolved problems like blocking and splashing, the states of ALaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have banned PPPs. The difference between the two bills, S.1660 and S.1643, is that the latter would penalize AOS companies and PPP owners and operators caught blocking or splashing. The bill, introduced by Senator Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.), would prevent the owners from receiving commissions from AOS companies, and force AOS companies that engage in blocking to charge the lowest rates of all carriers then prevailing in the area. "The FCC order of Febuary 1989 is basically being ignored." said Bill Kolloff, a member of Senator Dixon's staff. "A year's gone by, and we are still getting 150 complaints a week. Senator Dixon feels it's about time we put some teeth into the legislation." --------------- As the AT&T ads say PROCEED WITH CAUTION !!!!! Here are two pieces of legislation that deserves our support. Michael Katzmann. Amateur Radio Stations Broadcast Sports Technology Australia VK2BEA 2135 Espey Ct. #4., United Kingdom G4NYV Crofton. Md. 21114 United States NV3Z uucp ....uunet!mimsy!arinc!vk2bea!michael [Moderator's Note: The complete text of the FCC vrs. AOS/COCOT decision is on file in the Telecom Archives if you want a copy. PT] ------------------------------ From: "John R. Galloway Jr." Subject: Minitel and On-line Phone Books: Legal in the US? Date: 5 May 90 20:36:28 GMT Organization: Galloway Research I just saw an issue of "The Computer Cronicles" on one of the bay area PBS stations, which was all about the French Minitel system (also available in the US now, see past postings). First a little Minitel info: Minitel, in France, is owned by the government-run phone company. A Minitel terminal costs about $200.00 (to make I presume) and is given away free to anyone that wants one, they have now given away 5,000,000 which is about 30% of all residents (15M seems small but..). There are now over 12,000 information providers ranging from banks, to news servies, restaraunts, shops, etc. You pay only for what you use. A new graphics Minitel which can transmit/display halftone images is just being introduced. As a bi-product of this effort France is well on its way to a nation wide ISDN based phone system (I don't know what that means, each house wired for ISDN? major trunks? or what). They mentioned that one of the keys to getting started was that the phone company was their own information provider (the phone books) and that this allowed a very easy simple mode to use the system in as well making it easy for early, computer leary people, to use the system. Now the question: They also said that putting the system in the US is particularly challenging due to regulations, among which is one/some which PREVENT the phone books from being offered on-line. There was no explanation of this other than the one sentence. Is this really true? Seems really stupid if so. What exactly is the regulation? I'll be happy to blast off some mail to the feds asking for it to be changed if I can find out what I want changed (mail merge is so great!). Actually one of the services one of the French newspapers offers on Minitel is access of some sort for voters to various goverment officials!! -jrg internet jrg@apple.com John R. Galloway, Jr. (soon to be) jrg@galloway.sj.ca.us applelink d3413 CEO..receptionist 795 Beaver Creek Way human (408) 259-2490 Galloway Research San Jose, CA 95133 These are my views, NOT Apple's, I am a GUEST here, not an employee!! [Moderator's Note: Some people object to the telco being an 'information-provider', and take this to the extreme of wanting to prohibit telephone directories *maintained by the telco* from being on line. If they don't want the telcos to provide 'information' (if such a thing as phone book listings qualify under the definition), then why don't they go one step further and get Judge Greene to ban *printed* phone books published by the telcos also? The information therein is the same, and if the cable operators are so terrified by the Sisters Bell as a competitor, then maybe the various private directory publishers of America are likewise unhappy. And why do the telcos get to operate 555-1212 or '411' if having them as an 'information provider' is such a bad thing? Surely some private company could take over that function also. *Then* listen to the folks who complain about Big Brother-ism grouse about the mis-use of their phone numbers! In case you cannot discern it from this comment, I have no sympathy for the people who do not want the Bells to provide information on line, even to the extent they cannot provide their own directory listings to modem users. If telcos can distribute information about phone numbers in two mediums now (printed books and via 555-1212), then there is no reason they should not be able to give the same information in a third media (online data base for modem users). As a matter of fact, AT&T does have the 800 listings on line at Compuserve. I am surprised the AT&T Haters of America let them do that much. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #319 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20955; 6 May 90 0:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16685; 5 May 90 23:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07646; 5 May 90 22:24 CDT Date: Sat, 5 May 90 21:56:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #320 BCC: Message-ID: <9005052156.ab20744@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 May 90 21:55:15 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 320 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson More on Austrian Phones [Steve Gaarder] Line Slip [William M. Hawkins] MUX/DEMUX For Local Phone Lines [John Palmer] I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [Brian Litzinger] Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Diomidis Spinellis] Electronics to Busy Line When DTR is Low? [Tom Hampton] U of Washington - A Big Centrex [Sam Ho] Party Line Ringer Devices [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 May 90 11:37:25 EDT From: gaarder%anarres.UUCP@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Subject: More on Austrian Phones Wolf Paul's recent article about pay phone fraud in Austria takes me back to the days when I lived in Vienna and attended the American International School there, some 20 years ago. I remember the pay phones he describes very well - maddening things - you put in your Schilling, dial, wait for the party to answer, press the pay button, and watch the little pointer move across the dial towards the (usually too soon) cutoff of your conversation (no extension possible). It took a while for a foreigner to get into the habit of pressing that pay button; sometimes the other party would hang up before I remembered to push the button. When I got a phone call, and no-one was on the line, I got in the habit of yelling "push the button" in English and German. The method of cheating described by Mr. Paul (using a pin to stop the pointer from completing its appointed path) had not yet been discovered when I lived there, or was at least not known at the AIS. One question about that: he says that the only thing that normally stopped one from making international calls was that the pointer would move so fast you couldn't get a conversation in. This suggests that the pointer was driven by some signal from the CO. Anybody know more? Another interesting item was the "Vierteltelefon," a type of four-party line. We had one of these; it differed from the standard line in several ways. The phone numbers for these phones had seven digits instead of the usual six; I suppose the last digit served as a party identifier. The telephone set itself was equipped with a small button and a large sealed relay box. When you wanted to make a call, you lifted the handset and pressed the button. The relay box would go klunka-klunka thunk, and you'd get dial tone. Sometimes it would just go thunk, and no dial tone; this was when the line was in use. Under no circumstances could you hear someone else's conversation. The box also klunked just before the phone rang, or any other phone on the line rang. So we'd be eating dinner, hear the klunka-klunka, and have a few seconds of suspense wondering whether it would ring or not. I don't know how the system worked; I was pretty young then, and the relay box was sealed shut to prevent tampering. Anyone have more info? The most interesting quirk of these lines was something I read about in the local paper. Seems that if you took the phone off-hook without pressing the button, any incoming calls would simply be connected without ringing. The article imagined a scenario in which "Herr X" gets mad at "Herr Y", who is supposed to call him, and takes his Vierteltelefon off the hook. Herr Y calls, and is immediately connected, and gets to overhear Herr X telling his wife just what he thinks of Herr Y. A phone with a built-in infinity transmitter! Steve Gaarder [Moderator's Note: The old-style payphones here (three slots on top; no dial tone until deposit) had a funny thing about them: Leave the receiver off-hook with no money deposited and walk away. From elsewhere, call the number of the payphone. With the receiver off-hook, the bell would not ring; the phone would just make a 'click' sound and come to life. You could then listen to conversations in the background until someone noticed the payphone had been left off-hook and came over to hang it up. Another infinity transmitter! PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 00:13:10 CDT From: "William M. Hawkins" Subject: Line Slip I have been using a Prometheus modem to talk to MultiTech modems at work. Sometimes there would be an excess of "}" characters on the line. If I hung up and redialled, that connection would be OK. Ah, this is at 1200 baud, 300 baud is OK, as is voice (but useless for the volume of News). Three weeks ago, it got hot in Minnesota, and then I couldn't find a line that didn't have "}" problems. I've been told that this is "line slip", which I assume is in the trunk multiplexers. Yes, the machine at work is in a different exchange. My problem is, Repair Service doesn't seem to know what Line Slip is, or what to do about it. I expect that this august group thoroughly discussed line slip back when 1200 baud was the top, but I would appreciate some help with dealing with Repair Service. bill@bert.rosemount.com Fax 612-895-2044, Voice 2085 Burnsville, Minnesota USA ------------------------------ From: cat@tygra.UUCP (John Palmer) Subject: MUX/DEMUX For Local Phone Lines Date: 4 May 90 11:46:43 GMT Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI I've got a four line hunt group and would like to expand it to twenty lines. The problem is that there are no more free circuits out on the pole back behind my house. Is there some sort of multiplexor that the phone company can hook up at their end and at my end of the line in order to make one line behave like twenty (or four lines like twenty)? I'm using these lines for data communications (dialup modems) at speeds up to 19200 baud? Just curious. Michigan Bell says that it will still only cost $42 installation per line, regardless of how much work they have to do to get the lines to me. Somehow, I find that unbelievable. jpp@thundercat.com [Moderator's Note: And those of us who have to pay $42 'installation charge' to get a clerk in the Business Office to push his pencil -- and nothing else -- to get our line turned on find it equally incredible. I don't think telco comes out on the short end where installation charges are concerned. PT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier Date: Fri, 4 May 90 2:05:32 PDT I wasn't sure if this could happen but it can. My home has no default long distance carrier. When I dial a 1+ or 0+ long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really say anything is wrong. Just that things aren't working and that I should call my long distance carrier. Of course, I don't have one. I didn't exactly mean to end up without a long distance carrier, but these things just always seem to be happening to me. In any case I can still dial 10288 1+, or 11111 1+, etc, which actually seems a little more "equal access" than the default carrier scheme so I'm not going to complain. And besides, now the less informed can't make long distance calls from my home. Just though you might like to know. One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get when I try to use the default long distance service? <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian ------------------------------ From: D Spinellis Subject: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain Date: 4 May 90 16:55:15 GMT Reply-To: Diomidis Spinellis Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK I recently tried to connect a Pacific Bell wireless phone bought in Britain on a two wire socket on another European country. To do this I removed the British modular socket and connected the two outer cables to the continental socket. This got me dialtone and the ability to dial. Unfortunately the phone refused to ring. I removed all other phones from the circuit thinking that the problem was a high REN, but it still wouldn't ring. I tried all the other cable combinations to no avail. I also tried to connect some of the cables together, but that also didn't work. When I opened the phone I found that the two middle cables were indeed connected somewhere, so they were of some use. This made me try to connect a 5.6K resistor between one of the middle and one of the out cables and this convinced the telephone to start ringing. It also made it refuse dialing. One more attempt was to connect it to another phone line. That fixed the problem, but it was not the line I want to have the phone connected to. The only difference between the two lines is that the first one supports a third line ! via a frequency modulation scheme installed by the phone company. At the point where the line enters the house it passes though a band pass filter and at some other point a mains supplied box creates the third line. When I returned to Britain I opened a modular socket and found that there were THREE wires coming into it. It also included some circuitry (some of it sealed) which must be doing something useful. (Could it be ring supression for parellel connected phones? When I dial from the one the other doesn't churn.) My question is: How can I connect a British four wire socket to a continental two wire plug? What circuit is needed? I would also appreciate if someone could enlighten me as to the uses of the other wires. (For American readers: British modular sockets are physically not the same as the American ones. ) I have already posted this with UK distribution is sci.electronics, but I didn't get an answer for anyone in Britain, so if anyone on the other side of the pond knows something, please reply. Many thanks, Diomidis Spinellis Internet: dds@cc.ic.ac.uk Department of Computing UUCP: ...!ukc!iccc!dds Imperial College JANET: dds@uk.ac.ic.cc London SW7 2BZ #include "/dev/tty" ------------------------------ From: tom hampton Subject: Electronics to Busy Line When DTR is Low? Date: 4 May 90 19:50:09 GMT Reply-To: tom hampton Organization: Litle & Co. Our customers reach us through a rotary, but we can't be sure that all the modems attached to the rotary will be ready to serve them. What we'd like to do is busy out lines that aren't ready so that those calls are passed over to ones which are. A simple relay which sensed DTR would do the trick. Does anyone make such a thing? Thanks in advance. Tom Hampton, Mgr. New Technology, Litle & Co. | POB A218, Hanover, NH 03755 603 643 1832 tom@litle.com tom@litle.uucp {backbone}!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!litle!tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:59:32 PDT From: Sam Ho Subject: U of Washington - A Big Centrex I thought I'd tell you about the phone system at the University of Washington. This is a big university (37,000 students), with a lot of phones. This a bit long, but if you ever come to UW and can't find a phone book... The university and the surrounding area (U-district) have about a half-dozen prefixes: U-district: 545, 547, 548, 632, 633, 634 University: 543, 545, 548 (hospital using 4xxx and 6xxx) The 545 and 548 exchanges are split between inside and outside numbers. The University's 545 numbers are moving to 685. We are in a permissive dialing period, right now. There's also another affilated hospital, Harborview, on 223, and physically several miles away. They use the 3xxx, 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx and 8xxx numbers Most of the U-district is apparently served by a #1A ESS, judging by the clunk-clunk call waiting and MF signalling. The University prefixes, including outside people on 545 and 548 are on a digital switch, a #5 ESS, I think. The dialing plan must be close to a record for complexity: From the University: 0: Campus Operator (also 543-2100) 111: Campus Conferencing 12: Charge-a-call outbound 222: Police (although 9-911 is now recommended) 3-xxxx,5-xxxx: University 543,545 numbers 6-xxxx: Hospital 548 numbers (soon to be 8-xxxx) 7: University WATS outbound 9: Local outbound From the Hospital: 0: Hospital operator (also 3300) 190, 199, 222, 244: Paging, Code (cardiac arrest), Police, Fire respectively 4xxx,6xxx: Hospital 7-xxxx: Harborview 223 numbers 88: University WATS 9: Local outbound From Harborview: 0: Hospital Operator 147, 199: Paging and Code, respectively 2-xxxx: UW Hospital 548 numbers 301: Emergency 3,4,5,6,8: Harborview 7: SCAN (State of Washington WATS service) 9: local What gets me is that the three places all have different dialing instructions. Worse, the UW Hospital and the UW Health Sciences building are physically connected, but have different phone systems. I guess that's what happens when the phone systems just keep growing, and interconnections are hacked in. Oh, and for those dorm residents who complain about ACUS, the UW solves that problem simply. All dorm rooms come with an RJ11 jack and wiring down to a phone closet. You arrange for your own phone service. I assume US West is raking in a bundle in service order charges. Sam Ho ------------------------------ Subject: Party Line Ringer Devices Date: 5 May 90 12:11:24 EDT (Sat) From: Larry Lippman In article <7160@accuvax.nwu.edu> djb@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (David Brightbill) writes: > While doing some electrical work on a neighbor's house, I came across > an interesting device. At one time, the neighbor, like most folks in > our neck of the woods, had a 4 party line. Now almost everyone has > single party service. Anyhow, next to the service > entrance/protector/demark box was a small black potted box the size of > a pack of non-filter camels. It is labeled Transcom Tip Party > Identifier - TPI 5/CL - A 1/0. While I cannot recall seeing the particular model which you describe, I am familiar with similar devices, which are usually called "ringer isolators". The WECO equivalent is probably the 28A Ringer Isolator. The purpose of the device is to eliminate the impedance path to ground presented on multi-party lines employing grounded ringing. The presence of multiple grounded ringers causes longitudinal impedance imbalance on the telephone pair, resulting in hum, noise and transmission impairment. While this may be of a tolerable level on shorter loops with a small number of stations, the problem is more severe as the loops becomes longer and/or more stations are added. A ringer isolator uses a high impedance electronic circuit to sense presence of ringing and superimposed DC polarity, and if the configured conditions are met (i.e., the four conditions of + or - superimposed voltage combined with ringing on tip or ring side of line), the ringer is then connected. Therefore, in the non-ringing state there is an impedance to ground through an electronic circuit which is too high to result in noticeable imbalance. While ringer isolation can be accomplished with a three-element cold cathode tube, ringer isolators in recent years have generally been solid-state. In the particular case of two-party service the requirement also exists for the "tip party" to have a *DC* balanced ground in the off-hook state to permit ANI, thereby allowing message and toll call accounting. Since ringer windings are used as part of the tip party station wiring scheme, a ringer isolator usually provides an alternate means of providing this balanced ground during the off-hook state. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #320 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24768; 6 May 90 15:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01380; 6 May 90 13:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06890; 6 May 90 12:29 CDT Date: Sun, 6 May 90 11:48:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #321 BCC: Message-ID: <9005061148.ab26733@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 May 90 11:48:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 321 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Touch-tones and Musical Tones [Carl Moore] Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service [Steve Forrette] Area Code and Major Cities List Wanted [Steve Huff] Richard Young Products Catalog [TELECOM Moderator] DMS Imitates ESS [John Higdon] No ISDN for GTD-5 !! [Macy Hallock] Custom Ringing [mvm@cup.portal.com] MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) [David Tamkin] Blocking Toll Calls (Gadget Needed) [mmm@cup.portal.com] Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [John Higdon] Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 May 90 5:00:05 EDT From: cmoore@brl.mil Subject: Touch-tones and Musical Tones I have seen these displayed for the touch-tone frequencies. 697Hz 770Hz 852Hz 941Hz 1209Hz 1336Hz 1477Hz 1633Hz In the above list, each frequency is about 1.1053 times the one preceding (except in going from 941 Hz to 1209 Hz). But a half step in equal musical temperament uses the factor equal to 12th root of 2, which is about 1.0595. (Yes, I am also thinking of the phone number 654-5666 = "Mary Had a Little Lamb" thing which caused a few people to change their phone numbers when many others played that excerpt on their touch-tone phones.) I cannot fit the above to the musical scale which I derive as follows (please don't take this on a musical-discussion tangent): I started with the A above middle C on a piano. That is 440 Hz. Then I stepped up the chromatic, equally-tempered scale (each frequency being higher than the last previous one by a factor equal to the 12th root of 2). 440.0000000000 for A 466.1637615181 for A sharp/B flat 493.8833012561 for B 523.2511306012 for C 554.3652619537 for C sharp/D flat 587.3295358348 for D 622.2539674442 for D sharp/E flat 659.2551138257 for E 698.4564628660 for F 739.9888454233 for F sharp/G flat 783.9908719635 for G 830.6093951599 for G sharp/A flat 880.0000000000 for A (octave) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:47:28 PDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service There's been talk about the rip-off of charging extra for touch-tone service when it really reduces the phone company's cost. Here's the description of Touch-Tone that's in the front of the Pacific Bell directory: "This service together with your Touch-Tone phone makes dialing easier and faster. It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal computer and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even shop electronically where these services are available." Really? All that for only $1.20 a month? What a deal... ------------------------------ From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" Subject: Area Code and Major Cities List Wanted Date: 5 May 90 18:10:18 CDT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services I am looking for a list of area codes and major cities. For example, 913 would generate Kansas City (and maybe Topeka). Does anybody have such a list, so I don't have to copy it out of the phone book? The C program will not produce the output I am looking for without reprogramming, and I don't know C (keep that a secret -- it's embarassing). An e-mail reply is appreciated. Thanks. Steve Huff, business grad student, University of Kansas, Lawrence campus Internet: HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu EmCon: K1TR or KW02 Bitnet: HUFF@ukanvax.BITNET UUNet: uunet!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!HUFF@uunet.UU.NET Snail: P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS 66044-8225 [Moderator's Note: Two sources come to mind: In the Telecom Archives two files are named 'area.code.script.new' and 'areacode.program.in.c' which would be useful. Even though you are not familiar with programming in c, you could take these files, strip away the programming code and simply use the extensive text which accompanies each -- a complete list of area codes everywhere, with major cities. The other source is a book from AT&T called 'Area Code Handbook'. The 1990 edition is available now for just a couple dollars plus tax. This 64 page book includes lots of details on area codes and international dialing. Order by calling the AT&T Customer Information Center, 1-800-432-6600. Inquire about Select Code 999-600-111. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 May 90 23:12:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Richard Young Products Catalog I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, but always had full Digests with no room for more messages -- I received a catalog in the mail a couple months ago which is an attractive and comprehensive listing of computer supplies of all sorts. Called the "Richard Young Journal: America's Choice For Computer Supplies", this glossy and thick (111-page) catalog covers a very wide range of supplies of all sorts, from many different manufacturers. I recieved 'Edition XIII', but there is no indication how frequently the catalog is published. The firm has been in business about ten years. If you would like to receive a catalog and be on their mailing list, write or call them: Richard Young Products, Inc. 508 South Military Trail Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 USA Phone: 1-800-332-4332 (National IN-WATS line) 1-305-426-8100 (Callers from outside USA) The catalog alone -- like the one from 'Hello Direct' -- makes good reading in and of itself. To whoever sent it to me, thanks! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: DMS Imitates ESS Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 6 May 90 01:48:19 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon I am informed by another Digest reader (who is too lazy to write about it himself :-) that Northern Telecom has released a generic for its DMS switches that contains a "1AESS Transparency Package". This allows the DMS to offer feature implimentation that mimics the feature implimentation in a 1AESS. Example: a phone user has the ability to receive call-waiting while talking as the center party on a three-way call. Formerly, this was only possible on a 1/1AESS. Since the feature implimentation on the 1AESS is considered to be the standard, it might be worthwhile for those served out of DMS COs to encourage telcos to install this package. Now if they could just duplicate the clunks... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: No ISDN for GTD-5 !! Date: Sat May 5 14:06:26 1990 Per an article in the most recent issue of _Communications Week_, GTE has cut off the development of ISDN for the GTD-5 by AG Communications. AG, based in Phoenix, has laid off staff in response to this move, with more layoffs expected. GTE PR sez that since AT&T and NTI have demonstrated ISDN functionality, they do not need another vendor. Comment: Well, since GTE has forced the GTD-5 to be used by its own telco's, and since almost no one else would buy it, this seems to mean that many GTE customers will not see ISDN for quite a while. I understand the GTD-5 will be manufacturer discontinued within the next two years. Many GTE CO upgrades ordered recently are now scheduled for NTI DMS machines, which confirms the rumor that GTE will go for NTI stuff in a big way, not AT&T (which seemed to be the case when AG Communications was formed). GTE is selling NTI PBX's and key systems almost exclusively as customer premise equipment now. Has anyone seen any CLASS-type features actually operate on the GTD-5? They have been rumored for two years, but never seemed to work. They have only brought up Centrex services on the GTD-5 in the last year, and even that appears brain damaged. The GTD-5 hardware design seemed good, but the software has always been a problem. GTE's withdrawal of further development seems to confirm this. Well, I guess that those of us that are stuck in GTE territory will continue to exist in the hinterlands of telecom for a while longer. GTE always has seemed to drop the ball when it came to telecom manufacturing. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!MVM@uunet.uu.net Subject: Custom Ringing Date: Sat, 5-May-90 15:43:33 PDT Does anyone know what is actually done by the local TELCO to provide one of the newest "custom services", known by various names depending upon your TELCO, e.g., Custom Ringing, Ident-a- Ring, Distinctive Ringing etc., but which provides more than one telephone nummber (up to four in some areas) on a single line each with a separate, identifiable ring? I ask as I recently ordered it for one line to separate fax, voice and modem and was somewhat ticked at the $23 installation charge, thinking that all the said "installation" required was a software flag in the TELCO switch. But, while I was out of the office, a TELCO installer actually came by and did something on the frame. The visit made me feel a tad bit better about my $23, but I am now most curious WHY the guy actually came by and physically "diddled" with the line. mvm@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:35 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) In volume 10, issue 309, I had written: > MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and > mine [onto one MCI account] because they were not at the same address. Robert Gutierrez responded in issue 316: | What a bunch of sh....(err)...I mean, No, this is not true. The excreta are MCI's, Mr. Gutierrez; that IS what they told me. | MCI has had problems in the past with RBOC's rejecting PIC requests with | different locations (PIC = Primary Interexchange Carrier). The customer | keeps on calling without dialing the 700 test number, thinking he/she is | on MCI, and ... oops ... what's this AT&T bill!!! Robert, as a former MCI employee, assumes that we were trying to get MCI as PIC, forgetting my long submissions in the past in complaint that MCI were repeatedly telling my parents' telco and mine to switch us behind our backs. You can take the employee out of MCI, I guess. The problem was the opposite: MCI kept using our different addresses as excuses to create new accounts and to sneak 1+ service onto them. It was more a risk of thinking 1+ would connect to AT&T and "oops ... what's this MCI bill???" | Establish the account with the primary phone. Wait a week. Call back | Customer Service and tell them you want to add a number (reason: you got | a second phone in the house). The rep will say the phone is not in the | local area. You say: That's the number they gave me. That won't work. My parents and I are served by different telcos and the prefixes give that away. Oh, you say, in that case we CAN'T be put on the same account, but merely having two different addresses wasn't the reason? Gee, that isn't what the MCI reps told me. They said it was just because we weren't at the same address. Even next door would be too far away. | Yes, the RBOC will "reject" the request, but it will *NOT* be rejected | from MCI's billing database. One of the telcos is an RBOC subsidiary (a BOC itself); the other is an independent. RBOC and telco are synonymous only for Southwestern Bell. | blah, blah, blah. Yes, that sounds just like what MCI says all the time. | Oh yes, *YOU* have to call the local telco on the *2nd* line and tell | them you want MCI on it. The only reason to say ANYTHING to our telcos would be to get MCI as PIC, and that was NEVER our intention. It was solely for 10222. | Have fun. "Fun." Right. Go to the archives and read my tale of fun with MCI. US Sprint and Telecom*USA were able to do it without trouble or trickery. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net Subject: Blocking Toll Calls (Gadget Needed) Date: Sat, 5-May-90 17:26:23 PDT Is there any such thing as a gadget I can put on my line to prevent people from making long distance calls? I'm talking about something to be located in some non-obvious place, like where the service comes into the house. It would detect attempts to call long distance, and break the connection for several seconds (or some equally effective strategy). If not, this seems like a sure winner of a product for somebody to make. I can see problems with keeping the device from being hacked, like asking the operator to complete the call. But I don't see any insurmountable problem. At worst, the device could be programmed with all the local prefixes, and it could allow only calls to those prefixes and 911. -------------- [Moderator's Note: Toll-restrictors are old-hat. They have been on the market for twenty years or more. In the past, they were less sophisticated, but the newer ones do all you are asking and lots more. One model, shown in the 'Hello Direct' catalog, is very small, and discreet; it is attached on the line in series (but ahead of) the phones it is to service. More information on this is available from 1-800-HI-HELLO. There are several sources for these devices however. Another method is to have telco remove the default, or dial-one-plus carrier from your line, as per the next two messages in the Digest today. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier Date: 6 May 90 01:35:45 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Brian Litzinger writes: > My home has no default long distance carrier. When I dial a 1+ or 0+ > long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really > say anything is wrong. Just that things aren't working and that I > should call my long distance carrier. This is a perfectly "orderable" condition with Pac*Bell. When they ask you for your default carrier choice, you can say "none". Thereafter, if you dial any number out of the LATA, dial "00", or anything else that is normally routed to a carrier, you get a recording that says, "It is necessary to dial a long distance company code when calling this number." > And besides, now the less informed can't make long distance calls from > my home. This is frequently the reason people specify "none" for their default carrier. > One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get > when I try to use the default long distance service? Your local telco. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:30 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier Brian Litzinger wrote in volume 10, issue 320: | My home has no default long distance carrier. When I dial a 1+ or 0+ | long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really say | anything is wrong. Just that things aren't working and that I should | call my long distance carrier. | One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get when | I try to use the default long distance service? It's the local telco's job to figure out who is to handle the sequence dialed. "Call your long distance carrier" without naming them is a sure sign that the message is from the local exchange carrier. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #321 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28533; 6 May 90 16:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22947; 6 May 90 14:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01380; 6 May 90 13:34 CDT Date: Sun, 6 May 90 12:45:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #322 BCC: Message-ID: <9005061245.ab24079@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 May 90 12:45:11 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 322 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [William Degnan] Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests [Rajeev B. Patil] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [John Higdon] Re: MCI Around Town [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Gregg Townsend] Re: Ring Amplification [Brian Kantor] Re: Playing Matchmaker [Doug Lee] Re: Australian NPA System [Ash Nallawalla] Re: A Coat Hanger [Joe Talbot] Re: A Coat Hanger [David Tamkin] Cellular Pricing (Was Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes) [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 May 90 08:08:34 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool In a message of Jim Gonzalez (gonzalez@bbn.com ) writes: JG>I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about JG>inexpensive punch-down tools. I think I've located one, though. JG>Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, JG>but they also offer a less expensive one for $16. Specialized Tool has pretty pictures. Often their prices are "a little higher" than I'm willing to pay. Check the supply houses. JG>My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool? It is JG>a Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT.6 Yes. I've been told that there are some who actually prefer it. But, I suspect that it is because that is what they have. JG>They warn that it is only suitable for occasional work, since JG>it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and therefore JG>presents a greater risk of damage to the block. Is this a JG>serious risk? Well, I read this and thought that the people who buy tools are not always the people who use them, and therefore buyers might be more impressed with hardware damage than people damage -- thus the emphasis. But it is true. You might be OK for a couple of connections. After your arm gets tired from the impact, you might have to rock the tool on the terminal beam to cut the wire -- resulting in a groove in the block. This might make the next connection to the terminal beam a little sloppier. But no big deal. I think the real damage is to your arm after more than a couple of connections. I think you are already taking a step down using the S714. I prefer the Harris/Dracon D814, with interchangeable blades (90-degree twist to remove), and dial-adjustable impact setting. Regards, Bill QM v1.00 * Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!WDegnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: WDegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ From: Rajeev B Patil Subject: Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests Date: 4 May 90 13:18:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <7200@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cdash@boulder.colorado.edu (Charlie Shub) writes: > [Moderator's Note: This is part of a recent discourse in misc.consumers > between myself and others. Someone had written about being converted > to MCI service without their knowledge. ..] > The verification folk do not get bonuses for > verifying, and the sales people do not get credit until after > verification has verified the sale. I thus tend to view with some > skepticism the claims made by some posters. From one short experience with one of the many telemarketers, you are being a skeptic? At least one of the persons that complained of such a switchover was an AT&T employee who gets re-imbursed for the LD calls. Why would this employee agree to and verify the switchover? Why should this person (who normally does not pay for significant portion of residential personal LD calls) be liable for paying to MCI? Rajeev (201) 957-5325 att!io!raj ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Date: 5 May 90 18:51:42 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Jim Gottlieb writes: > Including the '1' all the time starts to make people believe that it > is part of the area code. Then when they want to call with special > billing, they dial 01-NPA-XXX-XXXX and wonder why the call goes to > Fiji (Ahh, that explains the commercials :-). Not to mention areas (like mine, although I understand it's now rare) that do not yet use a "1" for long distance in the US or Canada. "1" is an access code that can vary from area to area and telco to telco. No access code is used here. Nevertheless, most exchanges in town will absorb the "1" (none require it). On a client's PBX I have, just to be ornary, set up the ARS so that if any one dials a "1" before a station-to-station call, they are sumarily sent to a recording that says, "It is not necessary to dial a '1' when calling this number. Please hang up and try your call again." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 20:10:52 PDT From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <7224@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew.Hastings@pogo.camelot.cs. cmu.edu writes: > The MCI person also said that MCI has instituted a surcharge >of $0.25 for "Around Town" calls effective 5/1/90. She said that they >are notifying customers who call MCI. >[Moderator's Note: David, George and Andrew -- Welcome to the >wonderful, whacky world of MCI-isms. What you have experienced is >nothing new: MCI was pulling stunts like that fifteen years ago in the >early days of the Execunet program. Rate changing at will; notice to >no one until the bill came and you see the charges there, etc. .... >The rule of thumb now is the public be damned! Right, Mr. McGowan? PT] I have been an MCI customer for years, and I have not ever had the problems you guys are discussing. I was told when I signed up for MCI's Call California plan that it would not cover calls made with my MCI card. I also received notice in my April phone bill that Around Town was 25 cents as of 5/1/90. I was surprised only because I have BOC billing (from Pacific Bell), and I didn't realize that MCI could get Pac Bell to include an MCI Flyer with the bill. My favorite, though, is that "to simplify the confusing rate structure" (or some such nonsense), the previously effective surcharges for MCI card calls (50 cents from 950-1022, $1.00 from 1-800-950-1022) will be replaced with new charges (75 cents from either access number) effective May 15. I'm as disappointed as anyone about the rate hikes, especially since I'm used to charging all payphone calls to my MCI card (saves carrying coins and it used to be cheaper, too), and of course I can't speak for the unauthorized changeovers in dial-1 service, either, but I can say they *have* been fair in telling me what's going on. Perhaps David, George, and Andrew just aren't reading their phone bills carefully. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!" Disclaimer: It is illegal to reprogram your cellular telephone in order to avoid paying all or any portion of fees resulting from use of any (cellular telephone carrier's) service. ------------------------------ From: Gregg Townsend Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother Date: 6 May 90 05:24:35 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson In article <6937@accuvax.nwu.edu> douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) writes: >There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By >using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone >conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer >satisfaction." Since nobody else has done so, and since the subject won't die, I'll type in the exact quote as it is printed on my copy. It is buried in section 16, entitled "credit reports": From time to time we may monitor telephone calls between you and us to assure the quality of our customer service. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I added the emphasis, but it's clear that the circumstances of this monitoring are limited. This is not to say that I didn't enjoy Macy Hallock's article, though! Also, there was much discussion about Visa vs. MasterCard, but I don't think anyone pointed out that the series of ads in Time magazine featured Visa the first week and MasterCard the second, without at all being obvious about it. Gregg Townsend / Computer Science Dept / Univ of Arizona / Tucson, AZ 85721 +1 602 621 4325 gmt@cs.arizona.edu 110 57 16 W / 32 13 45 N / +758m ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Ring Amplification Date: 6 May 90 06:18:00 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I've seen "ring repeaters" and "ring relays" in the various telecom supply catalogs. The older non-digital ring relays generally consist of a relay with characteristics similar to a ringer, with a slugged solenoid so that they'll not chatter on and off with the 20Hz ringing voltage, and a DC blocking cap. The relay contacts are either brought out for the customer (to run 115VAC into a klaxon, for example). A ring repeater is a ring relay plus a ring generator, plus some off-hook sensing and bypass circuitry to allow it to regenerate the ringing but will switch itself out of the way when the called party goes off-hook. As a matter of practical cheesiality, many off-the-shelf low-current 115VAC relays designed for 60Hz won't really chatter much on the 20Hz ringing voltage, so you can build yourself a ring relay with just such a relay and a 2uf 600v non-polarized capacitor. About $5 worth of parts at your local electro-junk store, or $25 if you buy them new. Since the relay can have contacts capable of switching an arc welder on and off, you can activate just about any signaling device you want, from a tiny feeper to a submarine DIVE horn. Or play "La Bamba" on one of those fancy car horns from J.C. Whitney. Note that if you do it yourself it's not FCC part 68 approved. Building a ring repeater is too complicated to describe without a blackboard and lots of handwaving. Brian ------------------------------ From: Doug Lee Subject: Re: Playing Matchmaker Date: 6 May 90 09:11:33 GMT Reply-To: Doug Lee Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, IL Several articles have appeared in this Digest concerning calls established between two people by a third party. The following is a true and rather weird variant: Last semester at the University of Illinois, I was obliged to receive a call late at night when my roommate was sleeping. I told the caller in advance to call me in the dorm lobby at a certain time and gave her the number of one of the lobby phones. Unfortunately, I remembered a little too late that the phone whose number I had given her was one of two phones connected to that number, the other being in the main entrance to the dorm. This extra phone is in a box, and when a user forgets to stuff the stiff handset cord back into the box when finished (more of a rule than an exception, I fear), the phone remains off-hook. Thus, I was quite nervous that I would miss the call and decided to keep a close watch on the indoor phone, running out into the rather cold entrance area only if necessary to hang up the extra phone. On one of my occasions to pick up the indoor phone to check for a dial tone, I heard ringing. I also had JUST enough time to hear the outdoor phone being hung up before someone answered the call made from that phone. Since I was now the only other person on the line with the receiver of the call, I was obliged to try to explain to a VERY angry girl what had happened. I can't really blame her for thinking I was the craziest pranker in the campus for claiming I was not, in fact, the one responsible for waking her up after 1:00 AM. I continued waiting for my call -- OUTSIDE! (Of course, as luck would have it, no one else even approached the outdoor phone thereafter, and my call never arrived.) Doug Lee (dgl292@athenanet.com or uunet!pallas!dgl292) ------------------------------ From: ash@mlacus.oz (Ash Nallawalla) Subject: Re: Australian NPA System Date: 6 May 90 06:38:34 GMT Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne In article <7260@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney > and Melbourne, respectively? Also, isn't Launceston 004? Nitpicky I couldn't find any 02X or 03X numbers during a very quick scan of our phone book. Launceston is 003. The same quick scan suggests: 01XX - Telecom services 02 - Sydney 03 - Melbourne 05X - VIC 06X - NSW and ACT 07X - QLD 08XX - SA 09X - WA There are many omissions in my list, but undoubtedly others will fill in the gaps. The STD list in our phone book shows only the town, not the state, unless the name occurs in two states. I saw many 04X listings but I'd be guessing if I said they're in NSW. The 00XX listings are too diverse to be given one label. Ash Nallawalla Tel: +61 3 823-1959 Fax: +61 3 820-1434 ZL4LM/VK3CIT Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia. ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger Date: 6 May 90 08:23:30 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca I noticed old protectors in San Francisco that said "Western Union" on them. Does anybody know why that would be? joe@mojave [Moderator's Note: These protectors would have serviced Western Union telegraph lines going to the subscriber's premises (where you found them), or they might have been for the Western Union Clock Service. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:29 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger Peter Desnoyers wrote in volume 10, issue 315: | What I have always wanted to find out is what 75 stands for in S.F. | "ParK" maybe? All the older numbers (and most new ones) in the area I | used to live in (Haight near Stanyan) had 75x-xxxx numbers, and I'd like | to find out definitively what station that used to stand for. When a 75X prefix has a name, it begins with PL, SK, or SL. PLaza is especially common. In 312, 752 is PLAza in Dorchester; in 708, 754, 755, and 756 are SKyline in Chicago Heights and 758 is SKyline in Ford Heights. 75X could not be ParK. In 708, Glenview's 724 and 729 are PArk. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:31 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Cellular Pricing (Was Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes) John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 318: | The two Bay Area providers have come to the conclusion that it is more | profitable to throw in ALL custom calling, including voice mail, at no | extra charge, at least on contract customers. Cellular One (as the name is used by Southwestern Bell in metropolitan Chicago) has a similar package for large corporate customers. It has a name something like The One Club; customers with ten (?) or more telephone numbers get perks including free custom calling. I've not yet seen any literature from Ameritech Mobile that describes a counterpart. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #322 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00919; 6 May 90 17:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19391; 6 May 90 15:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22947; 6 May 90 14:38 CDT Date: Sun, 6 May 90 14:00:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #323 BCC: Message-ID: <9005061400.ab08894@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 May 90 14:00:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 323 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Really About Relays and Reality :-) [Larry Lippman] Reality, DeArmond, Lippman, Relays, This Digest [TELECOM Moderator] Looking for Key System Recommendations [Colin Plumb] Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [Peter Weiss] Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Julian Macassey] Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's [John Higdon] Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Bruce Perens] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Really About Relays and Reality :-) Date: 6 May 90 12:11:37 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman A few readers have gone off on a tangent concerning relay types and their sensitivity. Before presenting a few more details to put this issue to rest for the *last* time, I would like to refresh certain reader's memories with respect to what was actually stated: In article <6695@accuvax.nwu.edu> I quoted Mr. De Armond: }} > The output of the comparator is fed to a sensitive relay }} > from the junque box. This relay picks up at about 100 microamps and }} > probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment. It }} > has 2 dpdt dry contacts. In article <6695@accuvax.nwu.edu> I responded: }} Now, Mr De Armond did mention above that the relay "probably }} came out of an old piece of process control equipment". So, perhaps }} he was referring to a Weston Sensitrol [tm] or Barber-Colman }} Micropositioner [tm] series relay. These are the most sensitive }} relays that I can think of offhand which might be found in process }} equipment. (See, I'm trying to lend credibility to Mr. De Armond's }} story, nice guy that I am.) Except there are three new problems }} created with *this* scenario: (1) these relays were never available in }} a DPDT configuration, being SPDT only; (2) the Sensitrol relay had }} magnetic latching contacts in the microampere ranges; and (3) even Please read both the above claim and my response above *carefully*, and in particular note that Mr. De Armond's claim was that the relay "has 2 dpdt dry contacts". In article <7193@accuvax.nwu.edu> cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net writes: > It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA. Of course relays can operate on 100 uA and even less! I can tweak a common 280-type WECO polar relay to operate at well under 50 uA. Look in a Sigma Instruments catalog for a 5F-10000SS-PAL relay, which is their most sensitive, with a maximum pickup current of 300 uA. By tweaking the contact screws and adjustment spring, this relay can be made to pick up at 100 uA. But Y'all who are quick to point out that relays exist which pick up at 100 uA are forgetting something rather important: SENSITIVE RELAYS ARE *NOT* DPDT! They have ONE MOVABLE POLE. Just like the WECO 280-type, or the above Sigma model. > D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude > less. A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender. The Weston Sensitrol [tm] relay to which I referred in my response to Mr. DeArmond *is* a D'Arsonval meter relay. So what? These meter relays are only available as SPST and SPDT. > LL seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond > reality.) For a DPDT relay, it is beyond reality. Sensitive relays, be they meter-type or otherwise, have all they can do to drive a *singular* movable contact with enough mechanical force to ensure a reliable connection when the relay is at its operating setpoint. There is no way that a sensitive relay in the uA range has the mechanical force necessary to drive *two* movable contacts, with these contacts insulated from each to form a DPDT configuration. And we won't even consider the mass and complexity of such an arrangement to provide separate insulated connections to the movable portion of such a hypothetical relay. In article <7297@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > D'Arsonval meter relays do exist. They are little used nowadays, > since most modern plant instrumentation is digital, but I have seen > one and two-pole "meter-relays" in service. They have some small > contacts on the indicator pointer, and these are usually capable of > carrying a few mA to switch external relays. One very common past > usage of such things are setpoint controllers on thermocouple > indicators for furnaces and such. They are not small. Brian Kantor is quite correct, and he brings up another point: the low current-handling capacity of meter relays dictates that they be used to drive an external relay. The external relay can readily be DPDT or have even more poles, which is why sensitive relays in the uA range are *always* SPST or SPDT, since there is no reason to even *think* about designing a sensitive DPDT relay in the uA range. And now we have Mr. De Armond coming back for more embarrassment [drum roll inserted here].. In article <7296@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsiatl!jgd@gatech.edu (John G. De Armond) writes: > I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has > not, This is one statement I agree with! > here is the poop on the relay. It was made by Leeds & Northrop > and was used as a galvo null detector in the old "sexy crab" type > stripchart recorder. (I'm not 100% sure that this is an accurate > discription of the instrument; I've only seen one at a distance but > this is what I've been told.) It is a dual-coil, magnetically biased > relay with micrometer thread adjustable armature gap, spring bias and > contact gap. It is physically a bit smaller than a standard plugin > control relay. Sounds like the Barber-Colman Micropositioner [tm] relay that I mentioned in my original response. But guess what? This relay was only SPDT. Also, this must have been a pretty old relay to have been furnished by Leeds & Northrup. L&N had true servobalance potentiometric recorders and indicating controllers before World War II. Offhand, I cannot recall any L&N "Speedomax" series recorder or indicating controller which was NOT controlled by an electronic servo amplifier, with such an amplifier no longer requiring such a sensitive relay as has been described. Bristol Instruments was one of the last holdouts to use a contact galvanometer as a null detector, having manufactured such a recorder or process controller until around 1950. > This relay is, of course, simply a typical example of instrumentation > galvo relays. I have other relays that will actuate on as little as > 10 uamps. These consist of compact metermovements with the pointer > acting as a contact instead of an indicator. Perhaps Mr. De Armond can explain to us how the "pointer" on these "compact metermovements" can provide TWO isolated movable poles, and thereby form a DPDT contact arrangement? > some practicality has to enter into the equation. When we get right > down to it, Lippman, this spat, comp.dcom.telecom, and the Usenet in > general rate as pretty trivial in my life. Idle entertainment. It's > fun to debate and useful in that it keeps the skills sharp. But > treating the net as reality is a whole 'nuther matter. Mr. De Armond's statements have clearly demonstrated that he does not treat the Net as "reality". Some people, however, upon reading a technical newsgroup such as this one, would like to believe that there is a reasonable expectation of technical accuracy and "reality" contained in articles therein. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Reality, DeArmond, Lippman, Relays, This Digest Date: Sun, 6 May 90 13:00:00 CDT Thanks to this latest response in the Lippman/DeArmond battle, the topic will be closed at this time. Lippman quotes De Armond: >> I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has >> not, Then makes a response: > This is one statement I agree with! The quickest way to get the conversation stopped is by refusing to continue responding. The half-dozen or so responses made by other readers, when taken as a whole, don't total but a fraction of the bandwidth given over to you two in recent weeks. Lippman explains why the replies, particularly those from DeArmond should be halted: > Some people, however, upon reading a technical newsgroup such >as this one, would like to believe that there is a reasonable >expectation of technical accuracy and "reality" contained in articles >therein. Am I as Moderator expected to verify the technical accuracy of commentaries prior to publication? How is this possible? The Digest has in excess of 60 K of messages *per day*. Saturday we published just under 100 K of stuff. Is it up to me to say Lippman is right and DeArmond is wrong? I make no claims or warranties as to the accuracy of any information published here. The truth becomes known after an exchange of thoughts and ideas between the readers. Since everytime these fellows write they have to add personal attacks on each other, ie. > And now we have Mr. De Armond coming back for more >embarrassment [drum roll inserted here].. My answer is cut them both off. I need this like I need another 60 K of messages to be processed seven days a week. Patrick Townson Signature: Have you bugged your Moderator today? ------------------------------ Subject: Looking For Key System Recommendations Date: Sun May 6 00:46:3 1990 From: colin_plumb Some relatives will soon be needing a telephone key system for their office. I have noticed the salesmen indulging in such tactics as implying that the system won't work without their custom expensive feature phones and the like, so I have undertaken to do a little bit of research, and would like to ask the dissembled TELECOM gurus what to look out for, on both the good and bad sides. If anyone would like to recommend something, here are the desired parameters. Most are negotiable. - 16 (now) to 24 (maximum future) extensions - 6, with expansion to about 10 outside lines, all in a single hunt group (unless there's a good reason not to connect the fax directly) - The usual forwarding, pickup, call waiting features - Interface to a P.A. system ("Joe, wherever you are, there's a call for you on line 3.") - The ability to auto-retry a busy outside line would be nice - I'll probably be setting it up initially and can cope with most anything (like harassing Bell Canada about not breaking loop current on disconnect), but nobody who'll be using it is any good with things programmable, so it needs a near-infinite MTBF. Because of that last point, Centrex might be a good idea; I haven't priced it yet. Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share? (P.S. As I understand things, besides PBX's being larger, the primary distinction between the terms "PBX" and "key system" is that PBX's expect significant in-house traffic, while key systems expect most calls to be external. Have I got it right?) Colin ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 6 May 1990 11:32:11 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) In article <7302@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004261818@mcimail.com (David Tamkin) says: >Joseph C. Pistritto wrote in volume 10, issue 306: >| I had tried to get AT&T to [bill long-distance charges directly to a >| bank charge card, not counting their own] earlier, while living in >| the States, and could never get it done. Does anyone out there know >| if this option is in fact available to US resident subscribers? I successfully used an AMEX card in an AT&T logo payphone at the Greater Pittsburgh International (sic) Airport. By *IN*, I mean that the magnetic stripe reader accepted my card, I completed the call, and the charge found its way to my monthly AMEX statement. Peter M. Weiss | 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | University Park, PA USA 16802 | Disclaimer day of rest ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain Date: 6 May 90 16:17:40 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <7347@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zmact61@doc.imperial.ac.uk (D. Spinellis) writes: > My question is: > How can I connect a British four wire socket to a continental two wire > plug? What circuit is needed? I would also appreciate if someone > could enlighten me as to the uses of the other wires. For the edification of the group below is a description of the Jack wiring. In the UK jacks and three pair wire can be purchased in "Electrical shops". Electrical shops will also terminate wire with phone plugs to fit the jacks they sell. The UK jack by the way is designed to pull out of the wire at a certain pull pressure. This is a safety feature to prevent broken necks and phones. British Telecom Auxilliary Jack Wiring British phones have 3 wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip & Ring) coming into a house. There is no protector. In the primary jck in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its DC counterpart. See diagram: ----| |------O (3) | | (A) O----------------------O (2) (B) O----------------------O (5) Note: The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5. The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5. BT consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45 to 50 volts above ground. Wiring Colour Codes: The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired as follows: Pin # Wire colour 2 Blue/White 3 Orange/White 4 White/Orange 5 White/Blue END Note this was written with a "US" perspective, but should be understandable in the UK. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's Date: 5 May 90 22:45:04 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon John Bruner writes: > Also, I didn't know that Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and > Hawaii have banned COCOT's. What? The way it has always been explained to me by Pac*Bell types and PUC dweebs is that COCOTs are MANDATED by the MFJ. Due to the access requirements to the interstate network or some such, states supposedly CAN'T ban COCOTs. If this is true, how did they do it legally? And what's more important: how can it be done here? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: In the next issue (sometime Sunday evening), Macy Hallock responds to the original comment and this reply in an article too lengthy to be included in this issue. Watch for it in #324. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bruce Perens Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool Date: 6 May 90 17:52:27 GMT Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes: >Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but >they also offer a less expensive one for $16. Back when I had more traffic with professional installers, I noticed that some "old pros" used a SCREWDRIVER to punch down wire. They had expensive spring-loaded punch-down tools, but they preferred the screwdriver. They placed the screwdriver on the to-be-cut side, pushed down the wire, and used a bit of angular motion to cut it. The screwdriver might have been sharpened. Someone might write in and say that these guys were responsible for 300 million poor connections per year. I don't know how effective this method is, I just saw it done. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #323 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24878; 7 May 90 3:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30172; 7 May 90 1:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26046; 7 May 90 0:45 CDT Date: Mon, 7 May 90 0:26:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #324 BCC: Message-ID: <9005070026.ab10942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 May 90 00:25:41 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 324 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco [Macy Hallock] Georgia Strikes at COCOTS [John G. De Armond] AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [Joel Yossi] Princess Phone Query [Jeff C. Glover] Party Line Ring Codes [Larry Lippman] Re: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) [Robert Gutierrez] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sun May 6 13:34:04 1990 Subject: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <7341@accuvax.nwu.edu> : X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 319, Message 3 of 4 >[Quotes from IEEE Spectrum May issue's article about pay phones...] >Mainly because of unresolved problems like blocking and splashing, >the states of ALaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have >banned PPPs. >The difference between the two bills, S.1660 and S.1643, is that the >latter would penalize AOS companies and PPP owners and operators >caught blocking or splashing. The bill, introduced by Senator Alan J. >Dixon (D-Ill.), would prevent the owners from receiving commissions >from AOS companies, and force AOS companies that engage in blocking to >charge the lowest rates of all carriers then prevailing in the area. And the real winners from all this ill-advised and uninformed legislation will be the telcos. What these bills really seek to do is force COCOT's and AOS's to operate "just like the phone co. pay phones do" without solving the _real_ problem. One of most fundimental problems will be left unresolved: COCOT lines do not receive the same services as those provided to the telco's own pay phones, and therefore COCOT lines cost more for less service. The legislation should require equal services be provided at equal costs for _all_ pay phone lines. Giving COCOT's answer supervision, CO based network class marks and services would make a huge difference in the operation all COCOT's. ALL pay phones, telco and COCOT, should receive the same services at the same costs. Right now the telco's charge themselves internally much less for the CO supported lines used for their pay phones than they do for the dumb COCOT lines tarriffed for their competitors. At least one state has begun to see the light and restructured the basic cost and service arrangements for ALL pay phones. (CA, I think) Passage of these bills would be another example of telco lobbying for "lets keep things the old familiar way they used to be" with the result to the telco's exclusive advantage. I agree that AOS's and COCOT's are often operated in a less than desirable fashion, but these bills do not attack the fundemental causes and issues involved. They instead seek to placate the public by attacking only the symptoms. When, oh when, will the telco's stop seeking to return to monopolistic practices instead of seeking to create an open system of telecom transport thru innovation rather than legislation? To answer my own question: It will happen when our legislators and regulators begin to understand that "open" systems work to everyone's benefit in the long run, and begin to sturcture policy accordingly. In this age of special interests and big money, the thought of a coherent nation telecommuncations policy that promotes innovations and service seems to elude most politicians. And its the public that will have to solve that. And that's why I get so irritated whenever I hear someone whining "It was so easy before divestiture, let go back to the old way". Sure the old was easier: you took what the telco offered or you didn't. No other choices were available. Are the informed readers of this Digest to believe that the benefits of competition in the telecom marketplace are not to our benefit? To take this point a bit farther: Apply the same arguments and logic to the recent hotel/motel discussion. The issue is really shaped by the inablitly of most AOS's and hotel to get truly equal telco connections (again, no answer supervision, toll access settlements, etc.) If the CO based services built into the CO's were available to the hotel operators and AOS's then much of the justificaton for the absurd rates we see would dissappear. The telco's would also make money on the deal, too, by tarriffing these services like they do for CLASS. I think the telco's would be surprised at how many of these type of lines they would sell, once COCOT's and PBX's were programmed to use these features.. The fact is: equal access is still very unequal, especially for small time resellers of telcom services, i.e. COCOT's, AOS's and hotel/motels. That factor, combined with the American investors' demand for a quick return on investment capital (and/or greed) accounts for most all the abuses occurring out there. If legislation for a short term fix is required, then let it be designed to inform the public, not limit options. I would like to see a rate card posted next to each pay phone and hotel station showing costs. The public would then solve some of the abuse problems by voting with their wallet. This should not substitute for a long term solution of the equal access to services/equal costs problem, though. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: "John G. De Armond" Subject: Georgia Strikes at COCOTS Date: 6 May 90 20:51:51 GMT Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) There was a small footnote in the paper (Atlanta Constitution) which should warm the hearts of telcom readers. The article noted that the PUC has set up a COCOT strike force. (Can two people constitute a force?). These two inspectors are charged with driving around the state and trying every payphone they come to. They are looking for overcharging or violation of the FCC COCOT orders. One of the inspectors noted in a masterful stroke of understatement that the job was probably bigger than the two of them could address. He asked that all concerned citizens of Georgia report COCOTS in violation to the PUC directly. There is justice in this state after all! John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA** ------------------------------ From: "Yossi (Joel" Subject: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? Date: 6 May 90 18:18:58 GMT Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel What I want to do is make a call, say, to France when I'm in England and charge it to my AT&T card (or, for that matter, charge it to anything). Can I do that? Thanks in advance. Please e-mail any respones. Joel (joel@techunix.BITNET -or- joel@techunix.technion.ac.il) ------------------------------ From: "Jeff C. Glover" Date: Sun, 6 May 90 14:52:09 PDT Subject: Princess Phone Query I bought a couple of Princess Phones at a recent swap meet. The touch-tone section doesn't work. The receiver gets disconnected when I push the buttons, yet the tones aren't generated. Upon dissasembly there are two disconnected spade leads inside. They are a "gray" and a "gray-red". They lead directly to the ringer coil. Could these have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out? I'm able to jog the hook to dial, but that's getting old really quick. :-) Any other ideas of where to look are welcome as well. Jeff jeffg%orca.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net -or- ...!uunet!tektronix!orca.wv!jeffg ------------------------------ Subject: Party Line Ring Codes Date: 6 May 90 22:25:14 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article <6997@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > > We were 447-J, and our neighbor was 447-R. Legend had > >it that "J" meant "Jack" and "R" meant "Ring" indicating which of two > >named buttons the operator had to push to ring one of our phones. On > >four-party lines the suffix letters were -J, -R, -M, and -W. I have > >no idea what, if anything, these were supposed to stand for. The four-party grounded ringing scheme used for selective ringing, being the same scheme which survives today, was developed by A. S. Hibbard of the Chicago Telephone Company in 1896. Some time between that year, during which the WECO No. 1 Switchboard was introduced, and 1924, during which year the WECO No. 11 Switchboard was introduced, the four party designations of M, R, J and W were introduced. Without doing some explicit research, I cannot be more precise than that. The WECO No. 11 Switchboard employed machine ringing, and its "B" terminating position contained four keys which were labeled "M", "R", "J" and "W". From a technical standpoint, the M, R, J and W have a precise definition (valid today), which is as follows: "M" = + superimposed ringing on TIP "R" = + superimposed ringing on RING "J" = - superimposed ringing on TIP "W" = - superimposed ringing on RING > While I can not name a source, the early Bell "letter suffixes" for > party line ringing codes probably were no more than legend. Here's my > parallel reasoning: > ... > However, I feel quite confident the author of the terminology had no > such intent. The apparent randomness of the sequence "J,R,M,W" leads > me to suggest that as with examples like the E and M leads, the party > line "ringing codes" were merely wire designations on the schematic > drawing of the switchboard; nothing more. This could well be the explanation. Offhand, I cannot ever recall encountering an explanation of the letter designations. CO apparatus that I can remember from years ago (like 4-party SxS connectors or a test trunk ringing circuit) simply used the letter designations above with the understanding that everyone knew what they meant. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell historians (Chicago Tel was the predecessor to IBT) say the letter choice was made since those four letters sounded the 'least like each other' to an operator who had to ring one without making a mistake. A/K/J sound much the same, as do B/C/P/E. They did not want the operator to be confused. Thus, four 'different sounding' letters. PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) Date: 7 May 90 03:27:23 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes in V.10, Iss 321, Msg 8 of 11: > In volume 10, issue 309, I had written: > > MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and > > mine [onto one MCI account] because they were not at the same address. > Robert, as a former MCI employee, assumes that we were trying to get > MCI as PIC, forgetting my long submissions in the past in complaint > that MCI were repeatedly telling my parents' telco and mine to switch > us behind our backs.... I remember that. Your problem was the moronic reps you kept gettting. You just wanted MCI as an alternate carrier, but they kept getting you signed up as 1+ customers. > | Establish the account with the primary phone. Wait a week. Call back > | Customer Service and tell them you want to add a number (reason: you got > | a second phone in the house). The rep will say the phone is not in the > | local area. You say: That's the number they gave me. > That won't work. My parents and I are served by different telcos and > the prefixes give that away. Oh, you say, in that case we CAN'T be > put on the same account, but merely having two different addresses > wasn't the reason? Gee, that isn't what the MCI reps told me. They > said it was just because we weren't at the same address. Even next > door would be too far away. I only wish I saved the screensaves from MCI's customer service system to explain this.... MCI is divided up into seven billing centers. MCI calls them divisions (like the Pacific division is #7, and encompasses California, Nevada and Hawaii). The billing center does not care less where it gets it's information from (eg: billable calls), just as long as it is from the same division. Now, MCI tells its reps that, no, you cannot have two phones from different addresses on the same account because "the telephone records will not match up", which, yes, that is one reason (which can be gotten around), but the main reason was the possible *fraud* that could be committed. The same computer also takes care of so-called "corporate" accounts, which have _hundreds_ of telephone numbers on the same account, all from different places (sometimes), and because the same computer system tracks all of this (OCIS), if you had the right security level, you could add your phone number right on there, and theoretically bill somebody else for all of your L.D. calls. This was something MCI was very nervous about, and the front line reps did not have the security level to do this, but there were always mistakes ... and sometimes they were not mistakes (ie: deliberate). It was just a lot easier to implement a division policy in not having multiple phone numbers from different places on the same account. I know it worked, because I had it on my employee account (one number was in Marin county, under my fathers name!, and the other was mine in Hayward, 40 miles away). When OCIS did a lookup against the V&H database (LERG), it did give me a warning, but it was just that...a warning. I hit enter again and it was made permanant. I also did another workaround to have a calling card for each number, and their own around-town areas! But I hear Around-Town is going away :-( > The only reason to say ANYTHING to our telcos would be to get MCI as > PIC, and that was NEVER our intention. It was solely for 10222. Yes, I know. The reps just kept putting the "X" in the 'Dial-1' field instead of the '10XXX Service' feild. I think that was just the beginning of your troubles.... > "Fun." Right. Go to the archives and read my tale of fun with MCI. > US Sprint and Telecom*USA were able to do it without trouble or > trickery. MCI *HATES* doing 'secondary access' accounts ('10XXX accounts' as they call it), because of, again, their billing computer. What would happen is that you had a 10XXX account, and you decided to move, and disconnected your phone. Since MCI was not your primary carrier, the BOC would _not_ inform MCI you disco'd your phone, and then 3-6 months later, you old phone number is recycled. The new customers decide to get MCI as their PIC. But wait ... your old MCI account is still active because you didn't call MCI to cancel and the BOC didn't even have a clue you used MCI as an alternate. So, the new people make L.D. calls, but they don't see a bill. Hmmm ... strange. This goes on for three months (MCI goes through 2 billing cycles of non-payment before cancelling you on the 3rd cycle). You have, of course, moved, and the bills didn't forward for some reason or another. Well, 2 collection notices go out, then the account goes to North American Collections in Concord, CA. Well, all of a sudden, you apply for an AT&T VISA card and they say "DERROGATORY PAYMENT HISTORY" as they deny your VISA card, and why ... something about unpaid MCI long distance bills ... "But I paid them!!!".......... And you think Sprint's billing computers are bad.... rob. <---Patrick once said to keep our sig's short....:-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #324 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27175; 7 May 90 4:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06826; 7 May 90 2:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30172; 7 May 90 1:51 CDT Date: Mon, 7 May 90 1:15:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #325 BCC: Message-ID: <9005070115.ab10477@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 May 90 01:14:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 325 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Australian NPA System [Phil Clark] Re: Australian NPA System [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Australian NPA System [Jim Breen] Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service [John Higdon] Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [Macy Hallock] Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Clark Subject: Re: Australian NPA System Date: 6 May 90 23:48:28 GMT In article <7260@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: (Lots of stuff deleted) > Sorry -- I guess my comment wasn't clear. What I was referring to is > that the capital cities in Australia have area codes 0N, and in > general the area codes are then 0NX for other cities in the same > state. For example, 07 - Brisbane, 070 - Cairns, 07X - the rest of > Queensland. Of course, there are other exceptions to my very general > rule (089 -- which would be in South Australia -- is the entire > Northern Territory). Since N.T. used to be part of S.A., though, in > general all area codes with the same first significant digit are in > the same state. The NT has not been part of SA for quite some time! Like about eighty years! > (Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.) No longer true, see below. > Well, anyway, you see what I meant.... > 00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers* > 01X - unused > 02X - New South Wales > 03X - Victoria > 04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory > 05X - Unused > 06X - Victoria > 07X - Queensland > 08X - South Australia, Northern Territory > 09X - Western Australia I'm afraid that you have blown it again. In Oz, telecom boundaries are NOT state boundaries. The STD codes often overlap state borders. The code 05X is used mainly in Victoria. 04X is used in NSW and NOT in the ACT. Until recently, the ACT and surrounding are was code 062, but this has now been changed to 06 with the introduction of seven digit numbers in the area. Some 08X codes are in NSW, some 05X codes are in NSW, etc. While the pattern outlined in your list may have been the intention when direct trunk dialling was introduced in Australia, it is becoming more corrupt as the need for numbers grows. I think that Dave only mentioned that 002 and 003 were used in Tas when they are now using 003 & 004 as well. It seems likely that there will be more changes in some of the more densely populated areas as Telecom runs out of numbers as happened in the Canberra area recently. This may require wholesale revision or changes to the STD codes. area. > *It just occurred to me that this would also include things like 0011 > for international dialing, but that leads me right to my disclaimer: > I've never lived in Oz, so I only know a little bit about what I'm > talking about. > P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney > and Melbourne, respectively? Also, isn't Launceston 004? Nitpicky > minds want to know.... ;-) No there are no 02X or 03X codes as all of the following digits are assigned to exchange prefixes for seven digit numbers in those areas. In other areas you will find that not all digits are availble for use as some digits are already used, as in Adelaide which has 08 prefix but the numbers are prefixed with 2 & 3 and I understand that Telecom is now looking for more. Phil Clark, Department of Computer Science, ADFA, Canberra, Australia. pgc@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Australian NPA System Date: 6 May 90 03:33:26 GMT Organization: Dept of Computing Science, University of Wollongong, Australia rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: (giving list of area codes, per previous message) >P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney >and Melbourne, respectively? Also, isn't Launceston 004? Nitpicky Close, but no prize. Yes: 004 is Launceston. No: 02/3 anything is Syd/Melb.. The following is an incomplete list of 0xxx codes for Australia. 000 Emergency # (like US 911) 0011 Overseas Direct dial 0012 " " " with auto callback with cost 0014 Special overseas services (0014 881 011 is USA Direct) 0015 Overseas Direct Dial FAX 002 Southern Tasmania (Hobart etc) 003 Northwest Tasmania (Burnie etc) 004 Northeast Tasmania (Launceston etc) 007 [was mobile phones before 018 cellular]? 008 Toll free numbers (like US 800) 0100 Overseas Operator 0101 Overseas Bookings 0102 Overseas Charge enquiries 0103 Overseas Directory Assistance 0107 Overseas Bookings from a payphone 0108 Calls to ships at sea 011 Operator 013 Local Directory Assistance 016 020 Telefinder Radio Paging Operator 0173 Wake up calls 0175 Non Local DA 0176 Operator from a payphone 018 Mobile Phones 02 Sydney [New South Wales] 03 Melbourne [Victoria] 04x New South Wales 05x Victoria 06 Canberra & Australian Capital Territory 06x New South Wales 07 Brisbane [Queensland] 07x Queensland 08 Adelaide [South Australia] 080 Broken Hill & surrounds [New South Wales] 089 Darwin & Northern Territory 08x South Australia 0848 Kangaroo Island [South Australia] 09 Perth [Western Australia] 09x Western Australia Note: The 05x & 06x codes cross the NSW/Vic boarder in some areas. David Wilson david@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Australian NPA System Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Mon, 7 May 90 02:02:18 GMT In article <7260@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: (see previous message in this issue) Sorry, Linc. I admire your courage in making this statement, seeing you've never lived in Australia, but most of the above is *wrong*. The only "rule" is that Australia uses a 9-digit "national number"; i.e. the local number and the STD prefix adds up to 9 digits. There is no rule that country areas in a state use the same first two digits as the capital city. Many rural zones cross state boundaries. > (Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.) No it isn't. Canberra (i.e. the Australian Capital Territory) happens to share the same zone as some neighboring NSW towns. It is soon to get the 06 prefix, i.e. the numbers that were 062 xx xxxx will become 06 2xx xxxx. The change will provide expansion ranges. > Well, anyway, you see what I meant.... > 00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers* Plus IDD 0011, etc. etc. > 01X - unused WRONG! 01x is used for directory assistance, operator calls, etc. > 02X - New South Wales > 03X - Victoria WRONG! 02 is Sydney alone. 03 is Melbourne alone! > 04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory WRONG! See above. > 05X - Unused WRONG! 05x is mostly rural Victoria > 06X - Victoria And NSW! Jim Breen (rdt139z@monu6.cc.monash.oz) Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2748 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service Date: 6 May 90 22:03:25 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Steve Forrette writes (quoting from a Pac*Bell directory): > "This service together with your Touch-Tone phone makes dialing easier > and faster. It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal > computer and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even > shop electronically where these services are available." Isn't that special. I wonder why I have this knawing feeling that the average customer would not have a clue that little of the above has ANYTHING to do with the service that Pac*Bell provides; namely, the acceptance of DTMF as dialing commands. That reminds me. What happened to the great promise of the removal of touch tone charges when Pac*Bell got its extort-the-public plan through the CPUC bozo factory? I guess they were just kidding. Maybe they were kidding about everything else, also. Oh, I forgot. They have a pending rate increase they claim is necessary to offset the revenue reduction from the removal of the touch tone charges. I guess they're waiting for that to clear first. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sun May 6 17:36:59 1990 Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <7308@accuvax.nwu.edu> : X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 316, Message 8 of 9 >>My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two >>kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital. This is in addition to the >>other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits. >The local Telco will (in most cases) deliver ANYTHING to you on a T1 >span if you want it that way. Perhaps that is true in some more enlightened areas, but not in Ohio (at least as of a few months ago) Ohio Bell will not deliver local trunks via a T1. This includes DID and standard bothway trunks. The business office says that no tariff exists. GTE Ohio says the same thing, yet I have seen GTE take a fiber to a customer premise, install mux equipment and then state all local lines must interface as regular metallic two wire trunks. Now, both telco's have tariffed Centrex at rates lower than standard business lines, i.e. Ten centrex loop start lines (free TT) cost less than ten loop start business lines w/TT. T1 transport to a premise using Centrex using standard 2500 sets or key systems is never an issue, you want two wire metallic lines to support those sets. Only PBX customers want T1 local trunks (and/or DID), so I surmise the failure of these telco's to file a local access T1 tariff is a move to "protect" Centrex, which they are promoting heavily. T1 service for point to point use is readily available, but the costs are higher than most other major cities. I still do not understand why a loop start Centrex line costs less than a regular business line. I do not think Centrex requires less CO capacity. Sure sounds like cross-subsidized service to me. Of course, the telco's argument is "economy of scale", but ten lines is ten lines, right? I can understand, perhaps, ten vs. ten thousand. If this follows the same path as similar other situations, when the telco offers local service via T1, it will cost more than metallic based trunks, not less. The Ohio PUC seems to buy most of what Ohio Bell presents in these cases, unless the Ohio Consumers' Counsel intervenes on residential rates. Cost based service does not exist in this state. Oh, BTW, installation for standard DID trunks is twice (about $250) as much as regular Ohio Bell trunks, with a longer interval, too. The monthly charge is roughtly the same as a regular trunk. Number blocks cost $.50/mo per number, in blocks of twenty. There are a few other practices occurring that appear discriminatory as well: We just received Ohio Bell DID service for a customer (eight trunks, forty numbers) and got forty random numbers, instead of a sequentially numbered group of forty. I complained about this, and was told the CO was tight on numbers (I found a couple blocks vacant just by looking at the reverse listings in the Criss-Cross directory). I called the PUC and was told "the phone co has the right to assign any numbers they wish, its in the tariff". (I have installed other DID groups in Ohio Bell territory without encountering this problem.) GTE practices are worse yet. They charge about $2000 installation for the first three trunks, which is the minimum number you can order (which effectively prevents the installation of small DID based fax or voice mail systems) In GTE territory, it cost less to install a point to point T1 (same CO) than it does to install three conventional DID trunks. This high DID install rate also helps make DID based PBX's look expensive next to their Centrex services. GTE quotes six week installation intervals for DID trunks, provided the CO can provide the service at all. Whether the service is available is strictly a GTE decision, and they do not hesitate to tell you. They also say Centrex is avialable in CO's I know not to have the correct software generic. It appears that they are trying not to provide DID in a CO until Centrex is also available. (ALL GTD-5 generics support standard DID, only the newest supports Centrex services) Also: Ohio Bell is required to have a Centrex agency program, but GTE refuses to allow or appoint Centrex agents, you gotta go to their people ... the same ones who sell telephone equipment. I have heard a rumor that this may change ... GTE is also rumored to be separating their telephone sales operations from "above the line" services. Is Ohio the only state with this kind of telco nonsense? Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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") ------------------------------ Subject: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud Date: 6 May 90 22:28:27 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article <7262@accuvax.nwu.edu> raydu@ico.isc.com (Ray Dueland) writes: [Some generally outdated comments about Blue Box fraud deleted] > It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly. Pacific > Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS > systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated. Modern ESS > phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take > appropriate action. > [Moderator's Note: I'm a facist myself. That's why I strongly > discourage your efforts. Anyway, don't you think lots of calls to DA > lasting several minutes each look sort of odd? PT] Even during the mid-1970's before CCIS was widely implemented, and while Blue Box fraud was still a problem, fraud detection methods were implemented in ESS offices which were based solely upon message and toll accounting data. Only in comparatively few instances was it necessary to actually scan subscriber lines and/or interoffice trunks for the presence of subscribed-furnished SF and/or MF tones. Tone detection apparatus was generally used to gather corroborating evidence for a prosecution when the identity of a suspect subscriber was already known. How was the identity of offending subscribers ascertained? By looking for anomalies of the nature mentioned by the Moderator, including but by no means limited to: unusually long and frequent DA calls; unusually long toll call "attempts" where no answer supervision was ever returned; toll calls of a comparatively short distance where answer supervision was unusually delayed; 800 calls with anomalies in answer supervision; etc. What many Blue Box toll fraud perpetrators failed to realize was that in an ESS office the toll accounting software always knew that the subscriber was connected to a toll trunk, and only three conditions could exist: (1) answer supervision was returned and the subscriber was getting billed for the call, which was just fine and dandy; or (2) there was *no* answer supervision and the call was taking much longer than "normal"; (3) answer supervision occurred, dropped, and occurred *again* - which is real suspicious. It is possible that any of the above circumstances could arise during legitimate calling. However, repeated occurrences of anomalies would generate exception reports which could then result in investigation directed against a specific subscriber. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #325 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20011; 8 May 90 2:40 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21116; 8 May 90 1:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17327; 8 May 90 0:01 CDT Date: Mon, 7 May 90 23:56:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #326 BCC: Message-ID: <9005072356.ab06883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 May 90 23:55:36 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 326 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: DMS Imitates ESS (but can GTE do it?) [Macy Hallock] Re: `cu' Question [Stephen Friedl] Re: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco [David Gast] Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-Tone Service [David Tamkin] Re: Touch-tone ABCD [Mark Earle] Re: MCI Around Town [Peter da Silva] Re: Really About Relays and Reality :-) [John Debert] Re: Custom Ringing [Jim Gottlieb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sun May 6 18:13:35 1990 Subject: Re: DMS Imitates ESS (but can GTE do it?) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <7356@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon (Fellow GTE Critic) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 321, Message 5 of 11 >I am informed by another Digest reader (who is too lazy to write about >it himself :-) that Northern Telecom has released a generic for its >DMS switches that contains a "1AESS Transparency Package". >Since the feature implimentation on the 1AESS is considered to be the >standard, it might be worthwhile for those served out of DMS COs to >encourage telcos to install this package. Now if they could just >duplicate the clunks... I'd be just as happy is GTE could get these GTD-5's to imitate the reliablilty of the "obsolete tehnology" of the 1A ESS machines. We have had several outages on this 25,000 line class 4 machine in Medina since it was cut in a couple of years ago. All of the smaller GTD-5's in the area have been down a couple of times, too. (I always thought the Intel 8086, on which the GTD-5 is based was a decent chip, it always worked OK in my AT&T 6300 ... 'course I never tried putting 100 or so of them together in one machine and making them cooperate, either...:-) ) GTE also still has routing errors in the Equal Access configurations in most of their CO systems in the area. When I report these, I am told that no problem exists (by the CO supervisor!), but sure enough, a couple weeks later things start working correctly.... All GTD-5 database changes are now batched in by Fort Wayne's regional database group. Local people claim they have no control over this, and are absolutely not permitted to do any database entry locally. This can be really absurd at times. Example: conversion of trunks from loop start to ground start (which requires similar database changes in the customer PBX or call won't process)...we order the conversion, and are told "It will happen sometime on Thursday"... and sure enough it happens, but none knows when ... And don't even suggest that Fort Wayne would make an error ... they messed up the carrier selection at one of our Holiday Inns recently and effectively removed operator assisted calling from the property for a weekend because only Fort Wayne could fix it, and they don't work nites or weekends. I got to overhear an AT&T testboard supervisor chew out a GTE nite on-call supervisor about this screw-up (to no avail, BTW) I know I pick on GTE a lot, but all of this is absolutely true, I swear! If they spent as much money on employee training and decent people as they do on PGA tour and NFL sponsorships, this might not be the case. GTE Mobilnet is a different story, they seem to do things right. All of the stuff I describe is local telephone operating company problems I have personally been involved in. Then again, I sometimes have problems with United Telephone, Centel and Alltel, too. Even with Ohio Bell from time to time, but none of them is as tough to work with as GTE (or harder to get to fix their screw-ups). The GTD-5 isn't all that bad, considering what preceeded it here, though. The quality of the local people has a lot to do with all this, though, but I sure do like 1A's 5's and DMS's better, though. I'm sure glad John Higdon has posted a few of his GTE problems, otherwise I might sound like was the only one who deals with this crap. You readers out there with semi-decent local telcos don't know the fun you are missing! Please ignore the flecks of foam that form around my mouth when I talk about GTE. ;-) I'll go lie down now... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: friedl@mtndew.uucp Date: Sun, 6 May 90 23:57:47 -0400 Subject: Re: `cu' Question > "how do I save the output of a cu session? Larry Lippman responds: > While there is more than one method to accomplish what you are > desire, the simplest is probably: > cu -lttya2 | tee filename > where both sides of the session are placed in the file "filename". It would be a good idea to use ``tee -i filename'' instead because this will cause tee to ignore your interrupt character. Otherwise you hit your ^C key to stop a command on the other end and you find yourself logged off :-( Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl "AT&T computers - we're not THAT bad" - Bob Kavner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 01:37:11 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fairness by Telco (Another title might be: Subject: Just say NO to COCOTs) In article fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu > The real winners from this ill-advised and uninformed legislation will be > the telcos. One fundamental problem left unresolved: COCOT lines do not > receive the same services as those provided to the telco's own pay phones, > and therefore COCOT lines cost more for less service. I fail to see how the telcos will be the real winners; it strikes me that the consumer will be the real winner (but then I don't sell my body to the COCOT industry). If they cost more, they should be illegal. If they would cost less if there were truely equal access et al, then telco should be ordered to provide said service provided that COCOT provide lower prices than telco. All telcos shold be prohibited from kickbacks and euphamisms for kickbacks. > At least one state has begun to see the light and restructured the > basic cost and service arrangements for ALL pay phones. (CA, I think) I think he is refering to CA (based on previous messages to the Digest), but that statement only makes clear that he has not visited CA. Pay phones here are just as bad as elsewhere. All the COCOTs that I have noticed charge more than the PUC allows. (Good to see they have seen the light; I thought you meant all COCOTs were fiber optic. :-) ) > I agree that AOS's and COCOT's are often operated in a less than > desirable fashion, but these bills do not attack the fundemental > causes and issues involved. The fundamental problem is that owner's of the property and the COCOTs and AOSes are taking advantage of their monopoly location in order to charge more than a competitive rate. The issue is that the consumer gets ripped off. Could you provide one example of an AOS or COCOT that does not operate (pun intended) in a less than desirable fashion? > When will the telco's stop seeking to return to monopolistic practices? The COCOTs and AOSes take advanrtage of their monopolistic location. Don't just blame the local operating companies. I don't particularly care for the latter either, but at least they are regulated (to a minimal extent). > It will happen when our legislators and > regulators begin to understand that "open" systems work to everyone's > benefit in the long run, and begin to sturcture policy accordingly. First off, I want to use the phone in the short run, not 3000 years from now. Second, open systems may work to everyone's advantage, but call blocking and the like are not open. If the COCOT and AOS phones were truely open (and there was full information), there would be no problem--these organizations would shrivel up and die from lack of use. > In this age of special interests and big money, the thought of a coherent > national telecommuncations policy that promotes innovations and > service seems to elude most politicians. Its the public that will > have to solve that. When you are counting the special interests don't forget to include the COCOTs and AOSes. I am not really interested in all sorts of unneeded innovation, I would much prefer lower prices. > Are the informed readers of this Digest to believe that the benefits of > competition in the telecom marketplace are not to our benefit? There have been no benefits that I am aware of from COCOTs and AOSes. They charge more and provide lower service. They take advantage of their monopoly position and avoid regulation. I don't buy the argument that prices would come down if these operators had all CO services; I think they would just raise prices more. Allowing scams under the guise of competition does not provide a rational telecommunications policy. David Gast P.S. Some quoted statements were edited to shorten them and to correct spelling and grammatical errors. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 20:25 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Pricing versus Cost of Touch-Tone Service Steve Forrette wrote in volume 10, issue 321: | Here's the description of Touch-Tone in the Pacific Bell directory: | "... It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal computer | and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even shop | electronically where these services are available." | Really? All that for only $1.20 a month? What a deal... And of course Pac*Bell implies (and Illinois Bell employees have *insisted* to me) that unless you pay for tone dialing service, your telephone instruments lose the capacity to generate tones. Their former parent manufactures telephones specifically designed to pulse a number, send tones after connecting, and reset automatically to pulse when you hang up; but the BOC's still lie and say that such a thing cannot work: to use automated banking, voice mail, or "alternative" long distance companies they'll swear that you need not only a tone-producing phone but also tone-dial service on your line! Thank God I'm served by an independent. In my book, BOC stands for "bites off and chews." (OK, so I cleaned that up a little.) David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 20:49:51 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Touch-tone ABCD Two minor nits: As pointed out to me the RS TT decoder uses a 3.58 color burst crystal, as do many encoder chips. The motorola family of encoders and the Mitel decoder use 1 mhz chips (references still at my office) My Hayes Smartmodem 1200 dials ABCD with ATDTABCD * and # also work correctly. My USRobotics HST 9600/450 dials only 1-0, * and #. However, if one enters "EATHERE" i.e. ATDT"EATHERE" it translates the portion in the " to the appropriate numbers. Short article still forthcoming on TT encoder modifications. | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:36:00 GMT Sounds like MCI would make a great topic for a "frequently asked questions" posting... I had a problem with them myself, when they billed me for services but never supplied them. `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address. ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: Really About Relays and Reality :-) Date: 7 May 90 06:55:27 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} I don't intend to get suckered into a "I'm right and you're wrong" type of debate but I would like to point out that a certain sensitive DPDT relay does (or, at least, did) exist. I had purchased an old homebrew ham transceiver that had with it a direct-connect phone patch (homemade of course,) which had two sensitive relays which were DPDT. These were hermtically sealed cans of a mil-spec style. Now, how do I know that they were DPDT and sensitive all in one package? The diagram and description of the relay were too obviously marked to miss, fortunately. A test of the relays showed one to operate at 47 microamps and the other operated at 45 microamps. The minimum current went up with temperature. They were made by Leeds & Northrup and were in grey rectangular cans about 1x1x2.5 inches in size. Concerning D'Arsonval meter relays, I have seen several types from the Simpson temperature meters (type K TC, with low voltage control outputs) to Varian's 810 series TC pressure gauges that use one or more poles, with options for combinations of one or more poles, throws, whether a combination of SPST NO & NC, make-before-break, break-before-make, et cetera, ad nauseum. BTW, don't forget the small specialty meter companies who will make any kind of meter-relay combination a customer could want. A company in the Los Angeles area provided my company with special meters for some old Davis-Wilder metal evaporation equipment that used an obsolete type of multi-pole meter relay after D-W was bought out and shut down by TRW. It might be safer for some to admit to the possibility of something rather than be so adamant that something cannot be. MOre often than not, it seems that they tend to be proven wrong. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Date: 7 May 90 07:39:41 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <7358@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >I ask as I recently ordered [Distinctive Ringing]... >while I was out of the office, a TELCO installer >actually came by and did something on the frame. The visit made me >feel a tad bit better about my $23, but I am now most curious WHY the >guy actually came by and physically "diddled" with the line. He may not have really. When I converted my lines to Centrex (on 1AESS in GTE-land), an installer came out "to explain the features to you". I told him to just give me the codes and get lost. When my bill came, they had charged me big bucks for a premise visit. They insisted the installer must have done something. _I_ insisted that only CO work was required and I refuse to pay for a premise visit. They finally gave in and credited me the charge.  ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #326 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24421; 8 May 90 4:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14057; 8 May 90 3:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21721; 8 May 90 2:08 CDT Date: Tue, 8 May 90 1:53:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #327 BCC: Message-ID: <9005080153.ab16272@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 May 90 01:50:08 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 327 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Dennis Brophy] Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Carl Moore] Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Shamim Zvonko Mohamed] Re: More on Austrian Phones [Wolf Paul] Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [John Higdon] Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud [John Higdon] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Carl Moore] Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Rob Warnock] Re: Ring Amplification [Rob Warnock] Re: Caller ID Boxes [Henry Troup] Buying Telecom Tools [Edward Greenburg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 May 90 09:44:53 PDT From: Dennis Brophy Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification In article <7311@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >If I knew who to complain to, or how to followup on it, I would. But, >not having remembered the phone number, it's a little tough. If you get the "prize" notification again, you will want to remember the number and notify the Oregon Department of Justice, Consumer Protection in Salem, OR at 378-4320. Dennis Brophy INTERNET: dennisb@pdx.MENTOR.COM Mentor Graphics Corp. MCI MAIL: 4222648 (...!uiucuxc!mcimail.com!0004222648) 8500 SW Creekside Place VOICE: +1-503-626-1415 Beaverton, OR 97005-7191 FAX: +1-503-626-1282 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:22:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification In that phone message telling me to call 800-752-7979 (which, by the way, was busy when I tried it), I was also given 2-character code C2. ------------------------------ From: Shamim Zvonko Mohamed Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification Date: 8 May 90 01:49:48 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Unfortunately, I wasn't home, but my girlfriend answered this call. It was almost identical to these: cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me >about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code. This is a >"prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called"). Yup, same 800 number... motcid!behof@uunet.uu.net (Maureen Behof) writes: >one was about. I was first asked what my two-character code was (mine >was C2). Then I was asked what number I was called on. and same two-character code! >United Telemarketing. When asked who they were affiliated with, the >reply was United Telemarketing. They said United Marketing Group, of Independence OH. The scam was slightly different: `you have already won one of these 4 prizes!' - a TV (56"!!!), a trip to Hawaii, $2500 in cash or a $1000 savings bond, provided we paid $379 for a cruise to the Bahamas (that's what the VISA number was required for). Also, she spoke to two different voices, both identifying themselves as `Tim.' They reassured her that she could call back within 30 days and cancel the whole schmeer, but non toll-free at +1 216 328 0000. We will, of course, stop payment on the VISA and call them tomorrow to call the whole thing off. What do you think of (say) letting the OH Attorney General know about these people? Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: More on Austrian Phones Date: Mon, 7 May 90 11:05:06 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest 10/320, gaarder%anarres.UUCP@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Steve Gaarder) writes: > move so fast you couldn't get a conversation in. This suggests that > the pointer was driven by some signal from the CO. Anybody know more? Yes. The pointer is driven by the same impulses from the CO which drive the optional unit displays you can get from the PTT to attach to your line, and which were discussed here recently. > Another interesting item was the "Vierteltelefon," a type of > four-party line. We had one of these; it differed from the standard They are still around, although these days there are at most two parties connected per line, and in some instances only one; but they still work the same way. > The box also klunked just before the phone rang, or any other phone on > the line rang. So we'd be eating dinner, hear the klunka-klunka, and > have a few seconds of suspense wondering whether it would ring or not. The klunka-klunka sounds differently depending on whether the incoming call is for you or for one of the other parties on the same line, and with some practice one can tell if it's going to ring. There is also a tiny noise whenever one of the other parties obtains dial tone, and again when they hang up. Party lines are being phased out here in tandem with the conversion from mechanical to digital CO equipment: the PTT has lowered the fixed monthly charge for so-called "full lines", and conversion from party to full connection is free of charge when performed (forcibly) in the context of a CO conversion (normally, they charge AS 400/$35 for the conversion). You need a full line for almost all phone accessories, with only answering machines (rented from the PTT) being allowed on a party line; you also need a full line in order to obtain an account for the PTT's videotext service, BTX. One of the annoying side effects of the mechanical-to-digital CO conversion is that if your CO is scheduled for conversion within a year, they will no longer do on-demand conversions from party to full lines, so you have to wait until its your turn; never mind if you need to use certain accessories or services only available with a full line. The new digital CO equipment being installed here comes from Northern Telecom, and is here referred to as the "OES" switch, which seems to be a designation thought up by the Austrian PTT; I have been unable to get information on the NT designation of that same switch. If there is anyone among the readers of this digest who knows about NT's Austrian project and can provide more technical info on the equipment involved, I'd appreciate it. Just one more sample of prices here: the Austrian PTT now offers Call Forwarding, either to a single phone number, where all you do is enable or disable it at will, or like the American version, to any number of your choice everytime you enable it. There is a $30 charge to turn on the feature, a monthly charge of about $35, and of course, since Austria has no unmetered calling, you also pay the call charges for all forwarded calls, even local ones (They are in effect charged twice, once to the calling party, and once to the forwarding party!). I might get around to entering a few more interesting price items, but not today. Wolf Paul Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? Date: 7 May 90 11:23:41 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > I still do not understand why a loop start Centrex line costs less > than a regular business line. I do not think Centrex requires less CO > capacity. Sure sounds like cross-subsidized service to me. Of > course, the telco's argument is "economy of scale", but ten lines is > ten lines, right? I can understand, perhaps, ten vs. ten thousand. You betcha it's cross-subsidized service. We "standard service" suckers are served from the same switch the Centrex people are, but we have to pay more. Centrex is what the telcos use to compete with PBX vendors, who must depend on trunk service for their product to work. Guess who provides trunk service (or lack thereof when the mood strikes.) In the case of Pac*Bell's mini Centrex (Commstar II), the cost is much more than regular service. You pay full freight on the line and then they add an $8.00 charge to that. Is standard Centrex vulture priced? Naww... BTW, Pac*Bell does not deliver standard service on T1, either. What's more, the only proposed ISDN offerings are for (hold on to your hat)-- CENTREX customers! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud Date: 7 May 90 11:48:05 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Larry Lippman writes: > How was the identity of offending subscribers ascertained? By > looking for anomalies of the nature mentioned by the Moderator, > including but by no means limited to: unusually long and frequent DA > calls; unusually long toll call "attempts" where no answer supervision > was ever returned; toll calls of a comparatively short distance where > answer supervision was unusually delayed; 800 calls with anomalies in > answer supervision; etc. Quite right. This is why no phreak with any brains would ever use his own phone, a phone served from an ESS office, DA as the dialed call, or his blue box repeatedly from the same phone. Originally, DA did not supervise and one of the "gotchas" was when a DA call showed up as supervised on the AMA tapes. Also, it was suspected that a completed call to a non-working 800 number would sound the alarm. A favorite of blueboxers was a tandem on the east coast that, while difficult to route through, would not pass supervision. This would allow mean-spirited people to call a number (through this tandem) and hold it up indefinately. > What many Blue Box toll fraud perpetrators failed to realize > was that in an ESS office the toll accounting software always knew > that the subscriber was connected to a toll trunk, and only three > conditions could exist: (1) answer supervision was returned and the > subscriber was getting billed for the call, which was just fine and > dandy; or (2) there was *no* answer supervision and the call was > taking much longer than "normal"; (3) answer supervision occurred, > dropped, and occurred *again* - which is real suspicious. Many perpetrators did, indeed, know this, but there were other reasons that ESS offices were generally avoided. One was the fact that ESS recognizes supervision much faster than SXS or Crossbar. Some of the distant tandems returned a somewhat protracted wink and that would be enough to convince the originating office that a call had supervised. The hapless toll cheat would "blow off" the 800 call, only to find himself listening to dial tone twelve seconds later. For a number of years, Los Gatos was the cheaters paradise. The directorized SXS would send local calls outside of Los Gatos through the San Jose local tandem. However, its release time was much greater than the release time of the tandem, so it was only necessary to flash the hookswitch after dialing a local call. You would hear a "ka-plunk klunk" and then silence. At that point, standard MF signaling would send you anywhere on the planet Earth. Since these were local trunks, and were for "internal" telco use, there was no ticketing. No SF was required to drop the call, which was a major plus for perpetrators who were convinced at the time that a primary method for trapping blueboxers was 2600 Hz detectors. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:57:06 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? 01-NPA-XXX-XXXX? Recall the Digest article which had someone reaching Adelaide, Australia, when area 618 in Illinois was intended? 61 is the country code for Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 90 03:02:51 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <7365@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: | Nevertheless, most exchanges in town will absorb the "1" (none require | it). On a client's PBX I have, just to be ornary, set up the ARS so | that if any one dials a "1" before a station-to-station call, they are | sumarily sent to a recording that says, "It is not necessary to dial a | '1' when calling this number. Please hang up and try your call again." That's nasty, John! Given that all us poor folk in (415)-land [right next door, for those of you who don't know the Bay Area] *have* to dial the "1" to get to anybody in (408)-land, and given that many of us live in one world and work (or at least visit) in the other, such "ornariness" is nothing but cruel! Remember the first rule of good protocol implementations, "Be strict in what you emit, but generous in what you accept." Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 90 03:55:49 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Ring Amplification Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <7368@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: | Building a ring repeater is too complicated to describe without a | blackboard and lots of handwaving. Besides, you can go down to Radio Shack and buy one that you can plug a 110v lamp into. (It's intended for the hard of hearing, but any app will do.) Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ From: Henry Troup Subject: Re: Caller ID Boxes Date: 7 May 90 16:17:38 GMT Reply-To: Henry Troup Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. In article <7171@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Berbenich writes: >I also suspect NT has a few units, but have been unsuccessful in >finding a distribution center for them which sells to the public. >Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom? 1-800-NORTHERN which is 1-800-667-8437 For non-800 users: Canada 1-416-670-8115 (Customer Service Division) U.S. 1-919-481-8000 (Customer Services (NTI)) Austria 715-1212 (NT Liason Office (Europe)) England 81-3000 (Maidenhead, England: NT Europe Office) Hong Kong 831-2888 (NT Asia) Note: I'm not sure that the Canada and U.S. numbers are really direct sales. I'd start in the phone book, or 1-800-NORTHER(N). Read the disclaimer. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 or HWT@BNR.CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 00:45 PDT From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Buying Telecom Tools I recently tried to go shopping for some telecom tools and supplies. I wanted to get a tracing beeper, an inductive pickup, and a modular adapter (to bring the modular pins out in order to attach a test set.) I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't have a California resale certificate. I thought that the days of phone-paranoia were over. Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I can mail order items such as these? Hello Direct just won't cut it. -e ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #327 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26071; 8 May 90 5:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24727; 8 May 90 4:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14057; 8 May 90 3:14 CDT Date: Tue, 8 May 90 2:35:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #328 BCC: Message-ID: <9005080236.ab30907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 May 90 02:35:15 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 328 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Questions About Audiovox CMT-450 [W. L. Ware] Programming Guide for Audiovox CMT-350 [Douglas Scott Reuben] Telephone Tools and Workmanship [Macy Hallock] Splashing (was Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs) [Evan Eickmeyer] Questions About Ultraphone 100 [George Pell] Toshita Business Phone Systems [John Marvin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Questions About Audiovox CMT-450 Date: 7 May 90 23:49:40 GMT Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York Thanks to Marcel Mongeon's infomation on entering programming mode on this phone I have managed to do so. However of the 20-odd parameters I can only deduce what 3 of them do. I would appreciate any information on what the other parameters control. Anyone know? Lance *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ Date: 7-MAY-1990 15:40:13.08 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Programming Guide For Audiovox CMT-450 Hi again- To follow up on my earlier posting about reprogramming an Audiovox CMT-450 Cell Phone, I found out a few things which may be of interest: 1. Thanks to Marcel M. @ joymrmn , I managed to look at the resigsters in my phone. To do this, (and to recap), you enter your LOCK code, press FUNC then "#" and then "1". You should see the registers listed as: 01C- 555 02C- 1212 03C- LOCK code (normally the last 3 digits of your number, in this case 212) 04C- Area Code 05C- Home Code (I *think*- 00119 is what my cell co. told me, and it's what the phone had, so I figure it is my home code.) 06C to 09C are all "1". (I have no idea what these are for.) 10C - 10 (Again, no idea) 11C - 00 ("") 12C - 0000 ("") 13C - 1 ("") 14C - 1 ("") 15C - 333 (This LOOKS like something to do with what channels I can use...Anyone have any idea what this number really is?) 16C - 1 ( Again, no idea...) 17C - 008 ("") 18C - 000 ("") 19C - 000 ("") 20C - 00021 (What's this? Looks like another Cell System ID code...(I don't have a dual-NAM...)) 21C - 00 (Again, no idea...) 22C - 00 ("") 23C - 000 ("") 24C - XXX (LOCK code, again...) 25C - 000 (?) 26C - 3F (This one is odd - it seems to change when I implement changes to other registers, such as the phone number or area code. ) 27C - 80 (?) The first register that comes up after you enter FUNC - # - 1 is 01C. You can use the "*" and the "#" buttons to go sequentially down or up through the registers. One thing that I did notice that was different from the procedure for storing any new information entered into the registers was that unlike the CMT-5000, you need to press STORE, then FUNC - SEND, then FUNC - CLEAR. (You can alternately just turn the phone off after pressing FUNC and then SEND.) This differs from the CMT-5000 as there you need only enter STORE and then FUNC-CLEAR. 2. I also noticed that if you change your home system ID code, and thus your phone thinks you are ROAMing at home, it looks first for the Bell-B carrier, and if it can't find that it looks for the "A" (non-wireline) carrier. IE, I changed my home code to 00555, and instead of getting my (non-wireline) carrier's "New Roamer Info" Message I got the Bell carrier's. I had to switch over to get the non-wireline's message. Is this so for all Cell phones? If so, doesn't it give the Bells (or whomever the "B" carrier is) an advantage over the "A"/non-wireline carriers? Lets say I ROAM into an area that my "A" company doesn't have an agreement with. (Unlikely nowadays, but anyhow...). Will I always automatically get the "B" carrier first? Or is this also a feature that one can program into their phone? (IE, there is some register which tells the phone "I am to look for the 'B' system first, then 'A'." which can be adjusted to do the reverse?) 3. After speaking with someone in the switchroom at my cell co., they told me it really doesn't matter what I designate as my home system ID code when I am in my own system. As long as the phone number and ESN are correct, the phone will work, and I will pay *home* rates, even if my phone says ROAM on it. They said while the ID makes a difference for roaming purposes when I ROAM into other systems, at home the code is basically used by my Cell Phone to tell it when to turn off the ROAM indicator/"light". Is this correct, or does the home system ID serve some other purpose in terms of usage in my home area? (Interestingly, the switchroom staff were quite helpful, and not really surprised that I wanted to know this stuff. They did, however, caution me not to mention too much of this to customer service, because once they found out that I needed service elsewhere, "they'll probably try to sell you a dual-NAM phone!"...I guess this does deprive them of some revenue in a way! :-) ) If anyone has any further insight about this, I'd appreciate hearing about it..! Thanks, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu / @wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: 15-C = 333 means channel 333 is the default place to start looking for a paging signal. It works backward from 333, then forward again. The A carriers seem to start at 333 and work backward while the B carriers start at 334 and word forward. Also, A carriers always have an odd carrier code, i.e. 00177 or 00253. B carriers always have an even code, i.e. Ameritech is 00020. Depending if you are programmed to an even or odd number, when your home carrier (as indicated by the five digit number) cannot be reached then the attempt to roam is first tried on that type of carrier. For example, your home carrier is an A, then first 'right of roaming' will be some other A carrier. Likewise for B. The A/B roam default depends on whether you were on an odd or even, i.e. A or B, carrier for home purposes. I think the 10-C = 10 is saying your phone is capable of using all 832 channels instead of the older style which could only use 600+. You have to keep the value 10 there to tell the tower you can use the so-called 'spectrum' channels. At least two of the registers with '1' are toggles allowing 0/1 only. These tell the tower what 'access' and 'local' handling is to be applied to your call in the event of heavy call volume requiring some calls to go unserviced. ** REMEMBER: DO NOT RE-PROGRAM YOUR PHONE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CARRIER YOU WILL BE USING. SHOW THEM YOUR WORK; HAVE THEM OKAY IT. ** PT] ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Telephone Tools and Workmanship Date: Mon May 7 09:17:35 1990 Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <7363@accuvax.nwu.edu> : X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 322, Message 1 of 11 >In a message of Jim Gonzalez (gonzalez@bbn.com ) writes: > JG>I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about > JG>inexpensive punch-down tools. I think I've located one, though. > JG>Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, > JG>but they also offer a less expensive one for $16. [ additional discussions about punch down tools deleted....] I'm glad to see this information being discussed. Here are my thoughts: Everyone who wants to control and work with telecom stuff needs: - A butt-in (hand test telephone) - A 714-type puch down tool - Short-nose pliers (narrow nose for use in between rows of a 66-type block) - Tone trace generator - Inductive trace tone amplifier (banana) - Modular plug crimp tool - A Sanford Sharpie (fine point) to write on the wire (This is the only marker we have found to do this well) - Other basic tools (screwdriver, meter, etc) - A little training from a REAL telecom installer (some things you just cannot get from books) - Gray electrical tape (you tell a real installer by color of his electrical tape...) If you don't have all this, you are not prepared to do any decent telecom work. However... The world is changing. There are a couple of new types of connecting blocks out there that will not work with a 714 tool (BIX, ATT's new PDS block to name a couple). Of course, fiber is a whole specialized field in itself, too. T1 services and twisted pair type LAN's require more equipment, too. Moral of the story: When you wire a building, think of the tools you will need to service the system. Observe good practices from the start. To expand on this point: The fact is: the wiring is the most expensive part of the system. Phone systems (and computers) may come and go, but the wiring you live with for years and years... I find the wiring system to bo the most neglected part of systems I inspect in the field. Since it is hidden away in closets and behind walls, no one thinks of it as the "glue" that holds all our wonderful technology together. Bad wire = lousy communications. Far too often I find the wiring is left to a untrained building maintenance type who just "throws" the wire in, with no regard for appearance, operation, or records. I find plant electricians to be the worst offenders, they do not take low voltage wiring seriously. I have charged customers thousands of dollars to clean up other peoples messes ... and suddenly everything starts working right again. Did you know the National Electrical Code says: - you cannot attach wiring to electrical conduits - you cannot lay wiring loose on top of a suspended ceiling. You must support the wire off the ceiling. - specific types of wire must be used in certain areas. Do you know the difference and application of these wire types: - CMR - CM2 - CMP - CMX - CLR - CL2 - CLP (I may have missed a couple...) - CLX (I'm working from memory, here) So, use good tools. Know what you are doing. Label wires and jacks. Work neatly. Remove old, dead jumpers. Observe Code. Clean things up as you go. Keep records. It may not make a difference the day you make the changes, but quality and well-thought-out work will always pay in the end. (Isn't it interesting that the same rules apply to Unix systems administration and so many other technical things?) Just a few thoughts from someone out on the front lines every day. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer Subject: Splashing (was Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs) Date: 7 May 90 21:20:00 GMT Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California In article <7341@accuvax.nwu.edu> fe2o3!michael@uunet.uu.net (Michael Katzmann) writes: >Another common consumer complaint involves splashing, also known as >forward splashing. It works like this: a person using a PPP in Kansas >City, Mo., calls a number in St. Louis, using the services of an AOS. >The caller asks to be transferred to AT&T, but does not know that the >AOS is based in Dallas and that he or she is being connected to an >AT&T operator there. Thus the AT&T operator, unaware of the situation >and unable to rectify it in any case, bills for an interstate, long >distance call from Dallas, rather than a relatively inexpensive call >within Missouri. Unfortunately for the user, the situation does not >become clear until the telephone bill arrives. I have encountered splashing only once (to my knowledge), last year at the Super 8 Motel next to Nellis AFB at Las Vegas (in case anyone wants to stop by and check :-). Their COCOT was connected to some AOS, and I wanted to use AT&T to call school (Los Angeles) and home (near Palm Springs). I dialed 00, informed the "operator" that I wanted an AT&T operator. I was instructed to move the telephone handset away from my head, which proved to be good advice as a VERY LOUD tone of approximately 5 seconds duration followed. This tone somehow succeeded (can someone tell me how?) as I then had an AT&T operator. I explained to the operator that I was at a COCOT and did not want to be charged for operator assistance. Fine, no problem. I gave the operator my Los Angeles telephone number, and the operator said "Sir, you can't call Los Angeles long distance from Los Angeles." I said, "OK, I'm in Las Vegas." The operator said, "On my console, I show you as calling from area code 213." I could not get the operator to connect the call for me. Then I asked her if she could connect the call to Palm Springs (now being a different LATA from Los Angeles thanks to GTE and Pacific Bell, but I digress). She said that she could not only connect the call, but that I would actually save money because I would be billed for a Los Angeles to Palm Springs call rather than a Las Vegas to Palm Springs call, and she was right when the phone bill came! So, in some cases, splashing can actually save you money (but I agree that it should be prohibited). Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer University of Southern California eickmeye@alcor.usc.edu Los Angeles, California Apparently off to McGeorge School of Law (Univ. of the Pacific), Sacramento, CA ------------------------------ From: George Pell Subject: Questions About Ultraphone 100 Date: 8 May 90 00:29:08 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Does anyone have any information on the "Ultraphone 100" system? The system serves the high desert in eastern Oregon, replacing the hard wired multi-party lines which were a constant maintenance problem. It consists of a couple of boxes of equipment, and a vertically polarized yagi antenna marked 430 - 477 Mhz. I was unable to pick up any recognizable transmissions using a scanner while the phone was in use, except there was a lot of digital signals at various frequencies. Is this system digital, and therefore relatively secure? What else can anyone tell me about it. The customer (brother in law) was told that it was experimental, and had been also tried out in Texas. geo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 15:56:23 mdt From: John Marvin Subject: Toshiba Business Phone Systems Does anyone have any good/bad experiences with Toshiba business telephone equipment? My church is in the process of deciding on a business phone system to buy, and other members are pretty much sold on a Merlin Plus system. I was looking into Panasonic systems since I had seen so many recommendations here in TELECOM Digest. A Communications World salesman (nationwide business telephone dealer) explained that Panasonic had a hole in its offerings between their lower end key systems and their DBS (Digital Business System). He said that Toshiba had something that competed directly with AT&T Merlin systems and that Toshiba offered discounts to non-profit organizations. Since our previous business system was a repair nightmare (Paragon by TIE Communications), we really want to make sure that we buy a quality system this time. Also, I would appreciate hearing about any experiences you may have had with Communications World (they claim to be the 5th largest Toshiba dealer in the country). Since I am kind of in a hurry for information, I would appreciate replies mailed directly to me. John Marvin jsm%hpfcrp@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #328 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16195; 9 May 90 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29101; 9 May 90 1:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19459; 9 May 90 0:24 CDT Date: Wed, 9 May 90 0:15:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #329 BCC: Message-ID: <9005090015.ab17944@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 May 90 00:15:29 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 329 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson DID / Local Telcos [Steve Elias] Phones in Yugoslavia [Jeffrey Silber] Re: Toll-free Calls in Various Countries [Pat Cain] Automatic Phone Number Identifier [Joe Wiesenfeld] Two Phone Lines on a Single Pair [Wingnut@cup.portal.com] Privacy Revelations [John Higdon] Northern Telecom Phone Numbers [Wolf Paul] AT&T Services, Missing Information, Thank-you... [David R. Haller] "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: DID / Local Telcos Date: Mon, 07 May 90 07:06:22 -0400 From: Steve Elias Macy's Ohio telco sure does sound nasty and boneheaded, to be sure. Why is it that GTE switch telcos are so damned nasty? The switch technology is unreliable, as shown by Mr. Higdon's repeated reports about the idiocy he has to deal with in California, but what's the Ohio telco's excuse for those nasty policies regarding DID lines? I'd say that a complaint to the state DPU (or whatever it's called in Ohio) would be reasonable. I don't feel so bad about the 3 months it took to get my DID line installed, after hearing about all the telco silliness in Ohio! ; Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax) ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Silber Subject: Phones in Yugoslavia Date: 7 May 90 15:00:49 GMT Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY My sister recently took a phone to use in Yugoslavia. She said it worked for two weeks and then stopped. Does anyone know if the phone system in Yugoslavia should work with U.S. phones (pulse type)? Thanks. Jeffrey A. Silber/silber@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 16:21 M From: Pat Cain Subject: Re: Toll-free Calls in Various Countries Organization: Actrix Public Access UNIX, Wellington, New Zealand In article <7233@accuvax.nwu.edu> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >I'm told that New Zealand, like Britain and unlike Australia, uses >0800 for toll-free, but they only introduced it recently. Until then >they only had "Freefone" numbers, which you had to ask the operator >for; this is again British style. (It is of course the same thing as >the North American "Zenith" or "Enterprise" numbers.) The 0800 system was introduced a few months ago. Before that there were free phone numbers where you would dial the area code and the phone number. I'm almost certain that there was no operator involvement - I never spoke to an operator when I used the service and wasn't billed for the calls. Recently Telecom have introduced the 0900 system here too. The first service available on it was an accurate talking clock which had previously been free. I have only seen one more 0900 number advertised so far, but I suppose the 0900 service will become more popular as time goes on. Just as a side note, NZ Telecom has started changing all the phone numbers here over to seven digits (phone numbers were previously three to seven digits). They are also changing area codes (previously one to five digits) so that they are all one digit. There will only be five area codes to cover the whole country whereas before there were over eighty! This will mean most of the country will have new phone numbers between 1990 and 1992 which will probably create a lot of confusion. I suppose all these changes have got something to do with the fact that Telecom are facing some competition -- currently they are a monopoly. NZ Railways have installed fibre optic links along their trunk rail lines and plan to compete for toll calls (NZR are in partnership with some big US company, MCI I think). Another company have announced they intend to compete for tolls too (but they will use microwave links rather than cables). patrick cain e-mail: cs200cap@st1.vuw.ac.nz or patrick@actrix.co.nz bbs : +64 4 661231 {Sideways BBS, BBC & Archimedes} ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:45:32 PDT From: Joe Wiesenfeld Subject: Automatic Phone Number Identifier I just had my phones moved from one building to another. The phone man dialed 200-222-2222 and a computer generated answer gave the phone number. This was the test that was run by the installer. I'm going to try it at home - also a NYNEX line but a different central office. Joe Wiesenfeld TRW IND (508) 879-7376 Framingham, MA 01701 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Wingnut@uunet.uu.net Subject: Two Phone Lines on a Single Pair Date: Mon, 7-May-90 22:18:53 PDT What with all the talk about A) running out of wires to connect a phone B) Installation costs; I thought I would relate my most recent experiences. I moved to the small town of Ellensburg, Washington and wanted a second line installed in the house. The phone company is a small independent, which even has its own museum! Credit card calls still require operator intervention. Direct dialed long distance calls used to require the operator to ask you for your home number, and manually enter it to generate the correct billing, but that was automated a few years ago. The house was on a dead-end street where all the wires were used up, and they had no plans to ever string any more wires. So they hooked me up on the same set of lines that already hooked up the house, frequency multiplexing it on the existing pair of wires. The installer said he knew of some rural areas that had eight phones connected to the same single pair of wires. This enabled me to get a dial tone, and I called lots of places with both voice and modem without any trouble (including USR HST at the 14,400 bps rate.) But it did not provide line power to make my fancy phone remember numbers, or light the in-use lights, etc. Also, days when I made hours or more of calls, the battery would get run down and my phone quit working! The battery was trickle charged off of the regular line's power. There was no provision to power it from house A.C. power. Furthermore, the equipment box was mounted outside and was thus subject to large temperature extremes which must have effected the battery. Well, I moved to Oakland, California. Twice before I had second lines installed in Oakland with no trouble and only the standard ($34.75 plus $3 more for touch tone) installation fee. But this time they were out of pairs (again.) The installer told me the street had only sixteen pairs and there are about sixteen houses on the street, but many of the houses have converted basements for apartments, and several people have home office lines, etc. So once again, they frequency multiplexed me on to the existing house line (for my first line.) But then they did drag another pair of wires up the street about 175 feet to give me an "official" pair of wires, so at least my phone more or less works. I use a Panasonic two line phone that has nice line-in-use lights to remind me my modem is off-hook and all that. Except now both lights go on when I pick up one line, and neither light goes on when the modem picks up its regular line. Oh, well, that's progress. When the lines were connected, the installer said, "we were told we weren't going to have to use these things anymore" (the box that frequency multiplexed.) He said they may eventually rewire the block I am on. Anyway, I conclude that those places lacking sufficient wires can use the same box I have used in two different states as they seem to be readily available. I can find no part number on my box. It is about the size of a full sized modem, and also had a small isolation transformer attached to the phone lines before the wires go into the bigger box. A small (lead-acid?) battery is contained inside the larger box, which seemed to be mostly empty. I suppose I can rip it apart if anyone is especially curious as to the details as it is mounted inside the house in a closet. As a side note, I had the installer reverse the pairs of wires on the second, regular line where it came into the house, so that when both the regular line coming in from the pole, and the other line that was multiplexed on to the existing house wire, were all joined together, that I would have both lines on the four wire cord run through out my basement apartment. Upon reflection, it may have been better to leave it alone and just switch the wires internally so as not to confuse future occupants. I think I will try and switch it back when I leave. To further confuse things, it worked out much better for me to swap pairs on one of the house internal connectors so that my modem could be on the default line one pair. If I don't reset everything when I leave, the next poor person will have some trouble-shooting to do. Also, while each line seemed to have worked fine at the time the installer left, the entire arrangement of connecting five pairs together left some slight short so that the lines experienced cross talk to the point my modem would not work correctly on one line when the other line was picked up. I disconnected everything and reconnected them and now things work fine (famous last words, I know!) The next week my home fax machine died, but that is another story. Wingnut@cup.portal.com Some words are worth a thousand pictures. ------------------------------ Subject: Privacy Revelations Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 May 90 23:14:46 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Tonight in the first of a series on the 11 o'clock news on Channel 7, the breach of privacy through technology was discussed. This report dealt with cellular phones. With tones of shock and surprise, the reporter revealed that conversations on cellular (and cordless) phones can be monitored by others. Faith 'n beghorra, what's next? The reporter, cameraman in tow, rode around with a "scanner freak" who tuned in various calls and talked about how easy it was to get a radio that could receive these frequencies or how to modify radios that had the frequencies blocked. There was one mention that the practice was "technically illegal", but then the reporter added that the law was unenforceable. Really, now, are there still people who don't know that cellular calls are "on the air"? Well, judging from what is freely talked about on the cellular bands, apparently so. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Northern Telecom Phone Numbers Date: Tue, 8 May 90 12:42:49 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest V10 #327, Henry Troup writes: > >Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom? > For non-800 users: > Canada 1-416-670-8115 (Customer Service Division) > U.S. 1-919-481-8000 (Customer Services (NTI)) > Austria 715-1212 (NT Liason Office (Europe)) > England 81-3000 (Maidenhead, England: NT Europe Office) > Hong Kong 831-2888 (NT Asia) I don't know about Hong Kong and England, but the Austrian number also needs a city code, 0222 for Vienna. Or, in the much-discussed context-independent format: +43 222 715-1212. That number is indeed answered, in English, but with a strong Austrian accent, "Good afternoon, Northern Telecom" ( or rather, "Norzern Telecom" :-)). Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ From: uunet!stsusa.com!dhaller%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu Subject: AT&T Services, Missing Information, Thank-you Date: 1 May 90 14:13:41 GMT Organization: Siemens Transmission Systems, Albuquerque, NM I have a couple of experiences to relate and a couple of questions that have risen from them. I recently moved into an apartment with a roommate. When our phone service was started (US West), we chose to use AT&T as our primary LD carrier. We did not immediately sign up for any other "advanced services". My roommate and I make 90% of our calls outside the US and had discussed signing up for "Reach out World (sm)" ... sometime... A couple of weeks later, unknown to me, my roommate phoned AT&T to sign up for the ROW program. They told him "no problem, my information shows that we can have you signed up at midnight tonight." When first contacted and given our phone number, area code and billing name, they then asked us if AT&T was our primary carrier! Q1) Why does AT&T not know that we chose AT&T? They seem to be anxiously waiting to say "Thank-you for choosing AT&T" [ does the operator just push a button that injects his/her personally recorded version of the motto out the line? :-) ] My roommate forgot to tell me about signing up for the service. A week later, I called and joined ROW too. They gave me the standard questions and again thanked me for choosing AT&T, not knowing that we a) already had joined ROW or b) had chosen AT&T as our primary LD carrier. Q2) Why did AT&T not know that we are already members of the ROW program? In addition, the operator told me (paraphrased) ... "that the billing arrangements had not been completed between AT&T and US West for the program and it may take 2-3 months before a credit for our LD calls are credited to our account resulting from the reduced rates." Q3) Why didn't my roommate get told that the phone bill would be no different for 2-3 months? Sounds to me that AT&T does not have a very good information system to back up the very polite and courteous operators. Maybe the information systems have been re-allocated to process VISA and MC signups :-) We are just waiting to see what happens with our billing to see if we have duplicate charges! Daniel R. Haller | USENET: haller@haller.stsusa.com Siemens Communication Systems | 8620 N. 22nd Avenue | Phoenix AZ U.S.A. 85021 | VOICE: +1 602 395 5259 ------------------------------ Subject: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials Date: 8 May 90 22:01:04 EDT (Tue) From: Larry Lippman In article <7413@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeffg@loki.wv.tek.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes: > I bought a couple of Princess Phones at a recent swap meet. The > touch-tone section doesn't work. The receiver gets disconnected when > I push the buttons, yet the tones aren't generated. Upon dissasembly > there are two disconnected spade leads inside. They are a "gray" and > a "gray-red". They lead directly to the ringer coil. Could these > have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out? There is no such wire color as "gray" in the telephone world... It is called "slate". :-) Assuming that you have a WECO 2702-type touch-tone one-line Princess telephone set with a P1A or M1A ringer, the slate and slate-red ringer leads are used only for tip party identification on two-party lines. Therefore, they should be properly insulated and stored. I betcha a cup of coffee, though, that your problem is a simple reversal of tip and ring. Most Princess telephone sets did not have a polarity guard on the touch-tone dial, and therefore were polarity sensitive in dial operation. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #329 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18502; 9 May 90 4:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03057; 9 May 90 2:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29101; 9 May 90 1:30 CDT Date: Wed, 9 May 90 0:57:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #330 BCC: Message-ID: <9005090057.ab01099@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 May 90 00:57:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 330 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys [Andrew Payne] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Robert Gutierrez] Re: Touch-tones and Musical Tones [Rob Warnock] Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [R. Hamer] Re: What Voicemail System is Best? [Steve Elias] Re: Public Loops (was TT Freqs) [Clayton Cramer] Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [Rob Warnock] Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Payne Subject: Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys Date: 7 May 90 20:06:07 GMT Reply-To: Andrew Payne Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY In article <6964@accuvax.nwu.edu> jcp@cgch.uucp (Joseph C. Pistritto) writes: >tones on our autopatch capable repeater. A 'phriend' also showed me >that you can call the operator and knock her off the line by sending >one of these tones at the start of the call. Apparently this was >useful to phreaks at one time, as you used to be able to get a >dialtone (from the operator position) this way. You used to be able to hold down the 'D' key, and when a directory assistance operator picked up, you would be dumped into a pulsing dial tone. >[Before we get moralistic here, he showed me this once, and we neither >got the dial tone or repeated the test]. They definitely do use these After it went to a pulsing dial tone, it would eat one touch tone digit and dump you to a reorder, busy, or unanswered ring. Nothing useful at all. >Also worth noting that the commercial touch tone generator chips ALL >have the capability to generate these tones, it's just they aren't >usually wired up to buttons. Every touch tone generator (and decoder) chip I've seen implements the fourth column. However, some of the older COs didn't RECOGNIZE the fourth column tone at all. So what? Back in my younger years I was on a campus where you could dial a particular code and get an outside dialtone. However, if you attempted to dial any touch tone digits, the campus PBX would cut in with a reorder. Don't know what it was used for, but it was there. I took this as a challenge, and built a box that made the touch tones + the fourth column tone (1633hz). The campus PBX saw THREE valid ROW/COLUMN tones and didn't recognize the tone. The Bell CO, however, being 1633hz deaf, took the touch tone. I was able to cut the Bell dial tone, but the local PBX cut in after 45 seconds. I don't think this technique is too applicable today, as just about everything may not implement the fourth column, but they all seem to recognize it. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 8 May 90 00:34:07 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC Mike.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org writes in V.10, Iss 316, Msg 4 of 9: > Recent articles have commented on the four "extra" (A,B,C,D) keys on a > 16-key keypad..... > There was also one mention of the DOD Autovon usage.... > ....and used for multi-level precedence preemption. > Just as an aside, does anyone who knows and can comment say whether > there is a similar capability in the "civilian" world? [Note I did > NOT ask for particulars that would help a "phreaker." I'm merely > curious whether the capability exists.] Not at MCI. No need to, with redundancy (supposedly) available. Preemption is strictly a military beast. There are times, though, when you need a set of circuts immediately to test with. Usually with inter-switch circuts, you just take them 'out of service' on the switch, and wait for the callers to drop off as they complete the calls. Sometimes, though, you're testing with the local telco craftperson, and he/she can't wait for the calls to drop off...it's time for your own preemption. Well, lets see... this T-1 runs into this jackfield, and what if I accidently plug right into that plug ... OOPS! Red Alarm on the T-1. Sorry guys, my mistake, oh well ... oh, and by the way, all the calls are gone on the T-1 now, gee ... I can test it now since the calls 'dropped' off.... No jackfeild close by??? Well, there's always that LL switch on the T-1 interface card..... (LL=Local Loopback). Robert Gutierrez somewhere at NASA.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 90 04:28:00 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Touch-tones and Musical Tones Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <7352@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil writes: | I have seen these displayed for the touch-tone frequencies. | 697Hz 770Hz 852Hz 941Hz 1209Hz 1336Hz 1477Hz 1633Hz | I cannot fit the above to the musical scale which I derive as follows... The reason is that the Touch-Tone freqs are *not* a musical scale! Those frequencies were picked to minimize the possibilities of false selection due to harmonics of each other and of other tones such as dial tone, busy, and 60 Hz hum, and other single-frequency signals, such as might be generated by harmonic distortion in the transmission path. Recalling an illustration I once saw in an old Bell System Technical Journal, if you plot an X-Y chart of the DTMF frequencies, you will have a small square around each correct "pair", representing the range of frequencies which will cause that pair (key) to be accepted by the decoder. The plot is *not* dense: There is a goodly amount of empty space around each pair's "square". Now if you plot where various harmonics of single frequencies go, you'll get a series of slanted lines. For example, consider the third and fifth harmonics of various pure tones. That will be a slanted line at 59 degrees [==arctan(5/3)]. If you plot a whole bunch of "probable" or "common" distortion products, you'll get lines at various angles and slants. The Touch-Tone frequencies were chose such that *none* of these unwanted pairs (slanted lines) goes through a "correct" pair's square, with the exception (as I recall) of the 5:7 line which nicks the lower-right corner of the pair for the "1" key (or something similar, you get the idea). And that was viewed as o.k., because there's *another* criterion which is used to exclude bad signals from decoding as DTMF tones, and that's that the tones being decoded must be a large part of the total energy of the incoming signal, *except* for the other band. That is, the DTMF pairs are not separated with band-PASS filters, but with band-REJECT filters. What you do is take the whole signal, put it through a (say) upper-DTMF band-reject filter, *then* limit (clip) it, then pass it through the four low-DTMF specific detectors (and vice-versa for low-reject/ upper-pass). This will ensure that if there are significant signals *except* in the "other" DTMF band, the signals in the band you're decoding won't be a large enough fraction of the (clipped) signal to trigger the decoder. Or saying it another way, not only must there be sufficient energy *in* the target pair of frequencies, there must *not* be very much energy *outside* the pair -- the tones must be fairly "pure". So it is not surprising that the DTMF frequencies aren't "musical"... they were chosen for an entirely different set of criteria. p.s. I believe that BSTJ issue may have been the "Special Issue on ESS-1", but I'm not sure. Anyway, the article itself was all about the design of the "Touch-Tone" (DTMF) system. p.p.s. The article included all sixteen frequencies, and gave some mention to the use of the A, B, C, and D keys. So again, that info has been publicly available for at least two *decades*! Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 12:14 EDT From: HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service Steve Forrette writes: >There's been talk about the rip-off of charging extra for touch-tone >service when it really reduces the phone company's cost. Here's the >description of Touch-Tone that's in the front of the Pacific Bell >directory: Which brings to mind a question I have asked before, although not in exactly the form I will ask it now. I have never seen an answer I have understood. Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use it? In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone service, along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing still work.? I understand that in the good old days, the telco may have had to have a special switch that would recognize touch tones and take appropriate action; in these days of all digital switching equipment (at least here) and lots of extra services (call waiting, distinctive ringing, automatic callback, callerid, itc) is that just a spurious charge? Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone dialing to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering machine, voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then just switch my phone from pulse to tone and use the services? ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Re: What Voicemail System is Best? Date: Mon, 07 May 90 07:56:48 -0400 From: Steve Elias For those of you looking for voice mail systems, take this advice! Be sure to get a system which uses PCM voice compression (AD-PCM) and DON'T get one which uses CVSD. This recommendation rules out the voice mail company I used to work for, which I won't name here! If you want to hear how good an AD-PCM voice mail system sounds, check out the greeting on my 5598 number below. I've recorded a segment from a movie some of you might remember... If you want to hear how lousy and noisy CVSD voice mail sounds, try calling 617 859 1389 -- it's a friend's mailbox, so be nice! ; Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 09:29:27 PDT From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Public Loops (was TT Freqs)] In article <7229@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: # Reminds me of a GTE exchange in Redondo Beach, CA (213 area) in the # early 1970's. From anywhere, dialing 4 digits, 5455 or 5465 or # something (my memory's fading, and I only tried it once or twice, # honest!), would connect you to some sort of loop. It had a fair # amount of noise and audio levels varied greatly, but you could hear # lots of people yakking at each other. # I don't know how long it existed, but apparently many people knew # about it. Any of them on the net now? Are/were similar situations # common? Indeed, there were a lot of such phone numbers in the 213 area code. They were commonly called "party lines", in the sense of "party!" There were all sorts of juvenile adolescent behavior attached to them, and were used for purposes quite similar to the TalkLine services that are now offered on a more formal basis today. It seemed that there were anywhere from two to forty parties present at any given time. Such memories of my youth! Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 90 03:25:11 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <7328@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: | The two Bay Area providers have come to the (enlightened, IMHO) | conclusion that it is more profitable to throw in ALL custom calling, | including voice mail, at no extra charge, at least on contract | customers. If the features are available, customers will use them and | generate air time revenue... Well, the notice I got from PacTel Mobile Services (a reseller of Bay Area Cellular == "Cellular One" == child of Pacific Telesis) said that the custom features were "free for one year", so we'll see what happens next December. However, just after the big hoopla about "free custom features", I noticed that they had not only stopped charging me for the two features I had before, but that they had *stopped* charging me anything for fowarded calls! They used to be straight airtime, which means $.45 minimum (day). (They still list them on the bill, so-and-so minutes, with $0.00 charged.) Now this is a big win for me, as I was paying for the dozen or so calls from the many Determined Wrong-Number Callers [see previous articles on 999-xyzw vs. 99x-yzwN] that I was getting per month. Since most (not all) of those go to the tape, it's saving me some $10/mo. [Hmmm, I wonder if that might had something to do with about the same time moving the forwarded-to number from a 415-572 to a 415-960 exchange...??? Naah... Probably coincidence...] Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 7 May 90 14:30:43 EDT (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article <7380@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >I successfully used an AMEX card in an AT&T logo payphone at the >Greater Pittsburgh International (sic) Airport. Most airports and large hotels have phones with card readers that let you bill calls to credit cards. There are two main types, the black phones which belong to AT&T, and the various ones that usually belong to the local telco and let you pick any of a variety of carriers. I have seen at least three models of the latter variety: a regular AT&T payphone with a card reader shoehorned into the dial found in Ameritech territory, a really zoomy looking model with an LED display used by Pac Bell, and an older coinless model with a vertical card slot on the right used most other places. Every carrier seems to program them differently, some only accept cards like Visa and Amex, some accept those and "real" calling cards from local telcos and AT&T, some accept all of those as well as OCC cards from MCI and Sprint. The Pac Bell phones have really lousy card readers and usually don't accept any cards at all. The coinless model is reputed to be so confusing that only about one caller in three can figure out how to swipe a card through, it certainly takes me two or three tries. On these phones you have to physically insert a bank or T&E card to bill the call to that card, but for the telephone cards you can dial your number like on any other phone. This seems not to be a law of nature -- I found a COCOT at a rental car place near the Denver airport that let you dial your MC or Visa number. I note that in every case the card number is passed by the phone as a flurry of DTMF digits. Is there any compelling reason that you can't dial your Amex or Visa number yourself to charge a call? The fraud potential doesn't seem any greater than for telco calling cards. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #330 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04058; 10 May 90 1:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23078; 10 May 90 11:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14772; 10 May 90 10:30 CDT Date: Thu, 10 May 90 10:28:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #332 BCC: Message-ID: <9005101028.ab15688@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 May 90 10:28:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 332 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials [Steve Wolfson] Re: Pricing vs. Cost of Touch-Tone Service [David Tamkin] Re: Princess Phone Query [Gary S. Mayhew] Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship [George Horwath] Re: Fax Directories [Tim Oldham] Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [Terri Macko] Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud [David Lesher] Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Tom Gray] Re: x11 Numbers in San Diego [Bob Hale] My Previous Voice Mail Recommendations [Steve Elias] Info Needed on ANI for Area 202 [W. L. Ware] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials Date: 9 May 90 14:06:27 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: >simple reversal of tip and ring. Most Princess telephone sets did not >have a polarity guard on the touch-tone dial, and therefore were >polarity sensitive in dial operation. Could be it was even done on purpose: I remember many moons ago that was how Illinois Bell (at least in the exchange serving Highland Park) authorized you for touch-tone service. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 90 17:20 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Pricing vs. Cost of Touch-Tone Service HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu asked in volume 10, issue 330: | Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use | it? In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone service, | along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing still work.? Most telcos will accept tones from anyone. Some, however, will specially shut it off and force you to use pulses (at greater cost to them) in an attempt to strongarm you into paying for tone. My parents were put through this with Illinois Bell. A salesdroid called them, asking them to subscribe to tone service. My father said no thanks. IBT started charging them for tone dialing nonetheless. When the charge appeared on their next bill, I called IBT for them and complained. The charge was removed, but so was the free tone dialing capability that they hadn't been using: I found that if I dialed into an audio response system from their home and forgot to switch the telephone instrument back to pulse when I hung up, tone signals would not break dial tone any more; previously tone dialing had worked under those circumstances -- my parents still have two rotary instruments and didn't make a habit of tone dialing back when they could. | Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone dialing | to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering machine, | voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then just switch my | phone from pulse to tone and use the services? Yes, of course, but the employees of some telcos will tell you that you cannot because they are trying to soak you for the fee for tone service. That, in fact, was what IBT told me when I called about the charges for it. (The rep's viewpoint was very much like the one from New England Telephone who told a Digest reader that Call Waiting Suspension no longer worked there because people who used it were missing important calls: that Mother knows what is good for us better than we know ourselves.) David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: "Gary S. Mayhew" Subject: Re: Princess Phone Query Date: 9 May 90 13:25:45 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <7413@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jeffg@loki.wv.tek.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes: >Upon dissasembly there are two disconnected spade leads inside. They >are a "gray" and a "gray-red". They lead directly to the ringer coil. >Could these have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out? These leads have been disconnected by the manufacturer. Several different networks were used in this model, some requiring different ringers as well as ringer hookups. I would bet that the dial is in dire need of replacement or maybe repair. ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) Date: 9 May 90 15:20:07 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <7467@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >the various ones that usually belong >to the local telco and let you pick any of a variety of carriers. >I have seen at least three models of the latter variety: a really >zoomy looking model with an LED display used by Pac Bell... According to a Pac*Bell person, they designed these phones themselves and then tried to find a company in the U.S. to build them. Every manufacturer they contacted refused to build it to their specifications, so they had to look overseas and found a company in Japan to build them (I wish I knew who it was). By the way, when they were first installed, they had major problems. Trying to make a call using the credit card reader would usually fail. More recent tests have been more successful. ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship Date: 9 May 90 14:13:04 GMT Reply-To: motcid!horwath@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: >Did you know the National Electrical Code says: > - you cannot attach wiring to electrical conduits I saw an even BETTER installation one time - the installers used cable ties to attach the telephone cable to the fire sprinkler piping! The inspector had a fit when he saw it. George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D. I said that, not my company. ...!uunet!motcid!horwath ------------------------------ From: Tim Oldham Subject: Re: Fax Directories Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Wed, 9 May 90 12:06:11 GMT In the UK, there would seem to be only 1 fax directory, produced by British Telecom. It's free, both to place an entry and to receive a copy. A card comes with it offering a free entry in the directory, promising a free copy of the directory and subsequent editions ``until BT changes its policy''. While the directory contains international dialling codes, it contains only UK fax numbers. A warning ``Beware Bogus Fax Books'' is also included, together with instructions on what to check up on if you are offered an entry in (other) fax directories. I certainly haven't seen any other fax directories. At a rough estimate, the directory contains c. 100,000 fax numbers. This is the Nov. 1989 edition. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo ------------------------------ From: Terri Macko Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes Date: 9 May 90 23:10:15 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: >Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 302: >| or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call- >| waiting. Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges >| *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or >| accept a call waiting. >Yes, that they do. If you answer Call Waiting without terminating the >interrupted call, Cellular One does charge double airtime for as long >as you have both calls going; the same goes for using Three-Way >Calling. Unless Cellular One has just changed that, that is one >aspect in which they do charge more than Ameritech Mobile, who do not >charge for double simultaneous airtime. Hmm, I can understand under the pay as you use philosophy, that the mobile party in a three-way land-mobile-land call ought to pay for the two voice channels required by the call. However, a three-way mobile-mobile-mobile call seems like highway robbery ;-). Am I understanding correctly that Cellular One/Chicago charges four times for two voice channels? For that matter, why should a mobile-mobile call pay twice for only one voice channel! Why doesn't the billing follow the land network philosophy of the originator for that segment of the call pays? Terri Macko, Motorola Cellular 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237 ...!uunet!motcid!macko Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 [Moderator's Note: Last question first: Some cellular prefixes are set up so that the originator pays for the call, including air time. Others are not. When getting the phone turned on, order the type of service you want; you will be assigned the appropriate prefix, however this is not available in all cities. A mobile-to-mobile call incurs two air time charges since one channel is used by the originator to call the base to place the call and another channel is used by the base to connect with the party being called. With three-way calling and call-waiting however, there is only one channel, or period of air time being used. To accept a call-waiting, for example, there are not two radio transmissions sitting out in the ether, waiting for me to toggle something on the phone allowing one in and shutting the other one out. The waiting call is being held by the cellular carrier's switch, waiting for a signal from me to transmit one or the other to me. At any time I have only one connection with the switch, and should only have to pay for one period of air time. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud Date: Wed, 9 May 90 19:45:33 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Larry Lippman mentioned: >Only in comparatively few instances was it >necessary to actually scan subscriber lines and/or interoffice trunks >for the presence of subscribed-furnished SF and/or MF tones. Tone >detection apparatus was generally used to gather corroborating >evidence for a prosecution when the identity of a suspect subscriber >was already known. I do have knowledge of one such device. A friend, who worked for Mother in a mundane dept, once had a security type come to his office/lab. He had a mini-box in hand. {My asides in [] al_la PT.} Security Type It's broke, and Joe at the Main [CO] thought you could fix it. EE Friend What's it supposed to do? ST Can't tell you--it's classified [SURE] EE How do you expect me to...never mind, let's see it. Looking inside, he saw three 88mh cores, caps, several transistors, and a relay output. EE soon figures out the relay driver Q is dead and replaces it. He thought for a minute, then turned on an audio generator, and fed 2600 into the box. The relay closes. ST Hey, what are you doing, you can't use that note.... EE It works, are you happy? ST This stuff is SECRET...You better not say anything... EE Tell Joe I said hello..... A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain Date: 9 May 90 12:12:38 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. re - wiring of a British Telephone The question of the wiring of the ringer for a british telephone also caused me some trouble. In North America, the telephones are wired with a blocking capacitor in the ringer to prevent the telephone from drawing battery when on hook. In the British system this cpacitor is wired into the modular jack and three (three! count them!) wires are taken to the telephone. These are designoated A - our tip, B - our ring and C (maybe) to carry ringing. I suppose this practice was used to reduce costs or eliminate some of the REN of the line. Some BT telephone contain a blocking capacitor and can be wired for North American use - others can't. The only reliable way to solve this problem is to create a UK jack with the blocking cpacitor and a connection to a standard North American jack. If this is of interest to you, I can dig out the wiring required for this. [Moderator's Note: Not too many of you folks remember when here in the USA the phones used three wires. Red and green served their usual purpose, and the yellow wire went (I think) especially to the bell. The black wire went no-where. I have an old black rotary dial phone here with three wires (r/g/y) coming into it. At the terminal block, the yellow was tied in with the red wire. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 90 12:57:38 PDT From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: x11 Numbers in San Diego Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Hi, I saw your posting asking about test numbers in San Diego. It's been a *long* time since I was into finding and using these but here's a recap of what used to work: Find the root prefix for an exchange (example: 286-) and follow it with 000x. Frequently x=2 would give a 1kHz test tone and x=3 would give a sweep tone. By root prefix I mean the one most fundamental prefix handled by the plant; the only way I know to find these is to try all the prefixes handled by the plant. BTW, sometimes the -000x numbers will connect you to the test board - the person on the test board might want to know what the #@%! you are doing calling that number and if he doesn't like your answer you might lose control of your phone for a while as he traces the number. I took up the policy of hanging up if the number rang more than twice. 8-) Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: My Previous Voice Mail Recommendations Date: Wed, 09 May 90 08:51:57 -0400 From: Steve Elias Murphy's law has struck again. I pointed readers at the 617 932 5598 voice mail number so they could hear an example of awesome AD-PCM voice quality, and 617 859 1389 so they could hear an example of the far less awesome CVSD voice quality. Unfortunately, the owner of the voice mail system which runs my 5598 number has accidentally deleted all of the files in the root directory (it's a DOS machine). He is currently trying to recover everything via Norton Utilities. So, the 5598 number will be busy for a while. Hopefully it will be back later today (5/9). Bad timing, eh? ; Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax) ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Info Needed on ANI For Area 202 Date: 9 May 90 21:48:16 GMT Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York Does anyone know the ANI number for the 202 area code? Lance *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #332 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04344; 10 May 90 1:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23078; 10 May 90 11:35 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14772; 10 May 90 10:30 CDT Date: Thu, 10 May 90 9:44:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #331 BCC: Message-ID: <9005100944.ab10331@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 May 90 09:44:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 331 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Aggregation [David Tamkin] Re: Ring Me (was Re: What is 660 at NY Tel?) [Ron Pfeifle] Re: Princess Phone Query [Henry Troup] Re: Cellular Reading [Eric Varsanyi] Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Neil Readwin] Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [John R. Covert] Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [Michael C. Berch] Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems [John Higdon] Re: Programming Guide for Audiovox CMT-450 [David Tamkin] Re: Caller ID Boxes [mperka@netxdev.dhl.com] Re: Buying Telecom Tools [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 May 90 02:19 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI Aggregation [Moderator's Note: Article could be retitled, "MCI Aggravation" :) PT] ^^^^^^^^^^^ In volume 10, issue 324, Robert Gutierrez explained some of MCI's twisted reasoning that led to the problems I've had with them. | Now, MCI tells its reps that no, you cannot have two phones from | different addresses on the same account be