Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03587; 28 Aug 90 4:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19591; 28 Aug 90 3:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04183; 28 Aug 90 2:20 CDT Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 1:23:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #601 BCC: Message-ID: <9008280123.ab19473@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Aug 90 01:22:42 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 601 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson IMPORTANT CORRECTION: PLEASE READ [TELECOM Moderator / Ole Jacobson] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Peter da Silva] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Carl Moore] Re: Automated Collect Calling [David Smallberg] Fraudulent Use of Collect and/or Person-to-Person Calls [John R. Covert] Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls) [Carl Moore] Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Toby Nixon] Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Ed Greenberg] Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Tad Cook] Re: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures [Thomas Herbst] Automated Directory Assistance [Ed Greenberg] Directory Assistance Opeators (was: Automated Collect) [Barrey Jewall] Help With Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Marcel D. Mongeon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 22:49:12 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: IMPORTANT CORRECTION: PLEASE READ Patrick, Thanks for the excellent review of INTEROP 90 in the Digest. But before we annoy too many people let us give the correct phone number. The 415 number is 941-3399 (not 3300 as you posted). Thanks again. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor and Publisher ConneXions -- The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc. 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 ole@csli.stanford.edu ^^^^ ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 13:58:57 GMT In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu> albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: > Now, my question is, obviously the phone company (this was pre-breakup) > couldn't have been too thrilled about this practice, but was (is) it > illegal? Immoral? Perfectly okay? Pre-breakup I can't see how there was that much of a problem. The call would still be made, just billed in a different part of the country. Post-breakup is a different matter, but still on average it evens out. Sure, they're out one operator-assisted surcharge, but presumably the calls will be longer if it's your parents (who presumably have more disposable income) paying for it. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 17:21:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls There was or is available, in PA exchanges adjoining "Phila. metro" (this is in area 215 -- an example would be West Chester), metro service as an option. As a result, you could have a local call from, say, West Chester to Philadelphia, but not the other way around; and I did, years ago, hear of a case where one ring followed by hanging up was used (from the Philadelphia end, and then the person at the far end -- here, that's West Chester -- would call). ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Date: 28 Aug 90 01:38:05 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill writes: >What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" >[Moderator's Note: ... The calling party records his name; the person >who is being asked to pay for the call hears the recorded message and >accepts or rejects the call. ...] "Rejects" has been what I've done both times I've received these calls. Neither time could I understand the recorded voice of whoever was calling me! The two occasions were widely separated in time, and the voices were different, so their having the wrong number seems unlikely. Have other people had trouble with unintelligible recordings? And why is there no option to replay the name, in case you miss it the first time? And what happens if a non-English speaker answers the phone? In areas where automated collect calls are implemented, can one make a collect call using a live person for situations like the last one? David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 07:54:21 PDT From: "John R. Covert 27-Aug-1990 1044" Subject: Fraudulent Use of Collect and/or Person-to-Person Calls AT&T Security is deadly serious about catching and prosecuting serious violators of its tariffs (which, in the case of fraud, tend to be backed up by federal and state law). In particular, w.r.t. collect calls, old tariffs (1974) that I have state: "Abuse or fraudulent use of service includes the placing or acceptance of a call by a subscriber, his agent, employee or representative, in response to an uncompleted long distance call, which was not completed in order to transmit or receive intelligence without the payment of the applicable message toll charge." This means that both parties can be charged in cases where a collect or person-to-person call is made for fraudulent purposes. If someone calls you person-to-person collect, and leaves a callback, you (in theory) must call back via the operator number given in the callback message, which guarantees that the call ends up billed at the full rate, not the dial rate. In 1969 I visited the offices of Telephone Company Security to settle a small matter of accused (but not committed) fraud. I had been calling NPA 555-1212 and whistling it off, then listening to the failure recording, in order to determine what the first routing point was for each principal city in the U.S. Since this is the first step in the blue-box procedure, security demanded that I explain what was going on, which I did. While there, I was shown a box of operator tickets. Security had been sorting through all uncompleted calls looking for patterns, like trucking companies getting person-to-person calls and telling the caller that the called person had gone to city x. Truckers were calling for themselves, and the city was a coded message. With the automated system, fraud will be even easier to prove -- there is a recorded record of the fraudulent message in the callers own voice! Don't try it. john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 10:02:46 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls) If I forgot to say so: it's my OFFICE phone that gets answered with the number ("number" restricted to the 4 digit extension in a Centrex- type system, where I'd have to dial 9 for outside calls). But it's apparently RESIDENCE phones from which I received rare recoreded messages announcing what number I had just reached. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? Date: 27 Aug 90 10:42:08 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <11320@accuvax.nwu.edu>, david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) writes: > My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone > number? Is there a standards document that addresses this issue? CCITT Recommendation E.123 standardizes the notation for telephone numbers both within countries and internationally. It specifies that your "national" telephone number be written with the "city code" (area code) in parenthesis, with the number following with spaces between segments as appropriate. For example, my phone number would be written as "(404) 449 8791". Parenthesis, according to paragraph 4.2 of E.123, indicate that the enclosed portion of the number is not always dialed (e.g., if you're within the same city/area code). Parenthesis should not be used in an international number, since the entire number must be dialed. E.123 specifies that international phone numbers be written with a plus sign and the country code, followed by the city code and local number; by number would be written as "+1 404 449 8791". The "+" means that the international prefix ("011" in the USA) should be dialed before the number; the country code always immediately follows the "+". Paragraph 6.1 of E.123 says that spaces should be used instead of hyphens to separate portions of a phone number. Countries may authorize other notations, such as use of a hyphen, but hyphens are never to be used when specifying an international number. Nevertheless, I put the hyphens in my signature (below) because most of the people I send messages to are used to seeing it and because it "keeps it together" so its less confusing. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 Telex: 6502670805 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: +1-404-446-6336 MCI: TNIXON Telemail: T.NIXON/HAYES AT&T: !tnixon UUCP: ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net MHS: C=US / AD=ATTMAIL / PN=TOBY_L_NIXON / DD=TNIXON ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 15:08 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? Well, I'm back from vacation in New York, and after scanning ten days of telecom I see that I'm probably going to be the first to tell y'all that, according to the Television guide in Newsday ("The Long Island Newspaper"), the greeting in Fiji is (ta da) "Baku Vinaku Beachside" ... which is the name of a real live beach resort in Fiji. And that's the news ... so now ya know! ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom Date: 28 Aug 90 00:38:28 GMT In article <11116@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tim@ncoast.org (Tim Stradtman) writes: > I would also like to know this information, but for a differant reason > - we need to test various used modems for compatibility and operation. > Sending someone home with one so that we have a phone line between > them can be a real pain. For just doing functional testing of modems, you could use a line simulator, like the Proctor 49200 Telephone Demonstrator. It has four lines, with real sounding dialtone, ringback, busy, etc. You can reach Proctor at 206-881-7000. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 17:00:37 PDT From: Thomas_D._Herbst.ES_AE@xerox.com Subject: Re: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures The location of the the ... >The Second Annual Symposium on "International Telecommunicatons >Futures" will be held October 4-5, 1990 at the Peter Kiewit Conference >Center in Omaha, Nebraska. ... is rather ironic since Peter Kiewit and Sons is the sole owner of Kiewit Telecommunications, which is the majority owner of MFS, one of the leading fiber bypass companies. tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 14:57 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Automated Directory Assistance TELECOM Moderator writes: >1) You dial 411. >2) Operator's pre-recorded voice: "Directory, Ms. Brown" >3) You cite your request, the operator sits there silently typing. >4) The number is located, and the cursor moved to it on the screen. >5) Computer says, "The number is xxx-xxxx" (and repeats it). Actually, I've been meaning to write about my observations on this for a while. When automated readback came out, we found ourselves saying thank you to the machine. Then we felt guilty because we hadn't thanked the operator. Now, this is my observation of automated directory assistance: 1) You dial 411 2) Operator's prerecorded voice says something (usually, "Miss Brown, What City Please") 3) You say "In San Jose, Joe's Pizza, Please" 4) You hear "type type type typettie type type" 5) The operator says "Here's your number" 6) There is a loooooooong pause. 6a) If you say thank you, the computer is kicked in and you get your number. 6b) If you don't say anything, the operator tells you to have a nice day or thanks for calling or something else then kicks in the computer. My surmise is that while the operators can accept the prerecorded greeting, and can accept not reading you the number, it's mighty difficult to accept not being thanked. -edg [Moderator's Note: Incidentally, if you hear a pre-recorded greeting which sounds noisy, muffled, or otherwise not the best, tell the operator about it. I do, and they are always glad to find out and will usually record it over again. And for anyone who answers the phone quite frequently each day, you can get the same little gizmo the operators use for their answer phrase from the {Hello Direct} catalog. They are devices to have, and help save your voice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barrey Jewall Subject: Directory Assistance Opeators (Was: Automated Collect) Date: 27 Aug 90 23:30:39 GMT Reply-To: Barrey Jewall Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia In article <11349@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Our Esteemed Moderator (Patrick Townson) appends: >[Moderator's Note: (edited for brevity) >In many (most) directory assistance calls here, the operator never >says a word. Her pre-recorded voice greets you; the computer responds >with the answer. PAT] Out here (San Jose and the San Francisco Bay Area) I have had more than a few interesting calls with DA operators, usually when I ask for more than one number at a time... On a related note, and even better, I once went out with a girl I met while making hotel reservations for a Holiday Inn in Southern California. It turns out that their phoneroom is in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I just happened to be going there on business in a couple of days, so I got her to call me back when she was off work, and we exchanged phone numbers, and met in a club in SLC, (not a BAR, a CLUB!) 8-) :-) , and I'll keep the rest of to myself, but I will add that one should never discount the amazing things that can happen when one picks up a phone.... + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + ------------------------------ From: "Marcel D. Mongeon" Subject: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Date: 26 Aug 90 15:23:33 GMT Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. We have a reasonably large Northern Telecom Meridian SL-1 PBX serving a hotel environment. For calls made from guest rooms we have two types of trunk lines: a) regular outgoing trunks for local calls and message toll calls which are costed by a call detail recorder; and b) toll trunks which are used strictly for 0+ calls. On the second types of trunks a HOBIC hooked up to the CO gives us any charging information. I discovered a major problem the other day with respect to the blocking of calls on the first type of trunks (which use '9'+ dialing). A guest can dial '9', access the outside trunk, then dial '0', let the line time out and speak to an operator and presumabbly have a call made which is charged on the line but which we *can't* charge to the guest because the Call detail recorder has no information other than the fact that '0' was dialled. A little investigation showed that the problem results from the fact that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to allow direct dialled international is allowed. Apparently the SL-1 time out is longer than the trunk line '0' time out and the call does not get blocked. Obviously, we could just require all calls starting with '0' including '011' to go out over the toll trunks. However, we have 200 rooms full of dialling instructions that would have to be changed. Are there any SL-1 experts out there that can suggest a work-around? Perhaps changing some of the trunk timers? Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #601 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03782; 28 Aug 90 5:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19591; 28 Aug 90 3:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04183; 28 Aug 90 2:20 CDT Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 2:14:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #602 BCC: Message-ID: <9008280214.ab01563@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Aug 90 02:12:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 602 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Sunday Oregonian via George Pell] Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [Mitch Wagner] What Hath God Wrought? [David Smallberg] Dunkin' Telephone Demilitarized Zone [David Tamkin] Re: Area Code Data Requested [Tad Cook] Last Laugh! Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Paul Wilczynski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: George Pell Subject: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: 26 Aug 90 23:47:18 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. "Sorry, Wrong Number" Margie Boule' {The Sunday Oregonian} Portland, Oregon August 26, 1990 Irnalee Stohrs has had the same phone number since 1959. In fact, Mrs. Stohrs has had the number for so long, she remembers when the first two numbers weren't numbers at all, but the letters "C-H" (short for "CHerry"). These days, Mrs Stohrs' phone number starts with "2-4", but Mrs. Stohrs still finds herself saying "CHerry" once and a while. Old habits, you know. About a decade ago, Irnalee Stohrs realized that her telephone number was just one digit off the number for the Multnoma County juvenile court system. Three or four times a year, someone would call to discuss a son's truancy problem, or to ask Irnalee to connect the parent with a daughter's parole officer. As Irnalee puts it, "I was always very happy to tell them they had the wrong number, and then I'd give them the correct one. I didn't mind." Of course, that was before the state court system printed up a huge batch of official summonses, and put Irnalee Stohrs' telephone number - that's right, her very own, 32-year-old phone number- on the bottom, right under the words "For More Information." Once Irnalee realized the state's mistake, she minded quite a lot. Believe you me. "It started about three months ago," says Irnalee. "The phone started ringing off the hook." Irnalee was fielding calls for the entire county justice system: the Donald E. Long Juvenile Home, the juvenile court itself, and all the coun- selors. Sometimes Irnalee would tell the callers they had the wrong number, and they would insist it was the number printed on the official summons they held in their hands. So Irnalee called the correct number for the county juvenile system, and explained the mistake to the operator. "The lady wouldn't put me throught to anyone else," says Irnalee. "She said 'We'll look into it.'" A week passed, and still the bells rang in Irnalee's living room. Irnalee answered the phone each time it rang, because she never knew whether it would be someone from her church, or someone explaining that a son was relly a good boy at heart and hadn't meant to shoot anybody. The trouble was, even though the operator at the county had said she'd "look into" Irnalee's problem, the calls just weren't letting up. Irnalee kept calling. The county kept promising. The calls kept coming. I think you can see the pattern. By the time Irnalee called me in frustration last week, she'd made a total of five polite calls, and one less polite one. "Last week I said to them 'I think I've been nice long enough,'" says Irnalee, in her sweet little-old-lady voice. She was finally connected to a man named Rob Grantham, whose official title is Court Operations Supervisor. Rob told Irnalee that "only" 4,000 summonses had been printed with her phone number on them, and that the court had no intention of collecting the remaining blank summonses and printing new ones with a corrected number. Rob said that in his department, he was having people cross out Irnalee's number and write in the correct one. But Rob also said that he couldn't vouch for what other departments were doing. Rob told me he was profusely apologetic when he spoke to Irnalee. "I told her I had done everything I possibly could to correct the problem." (Except, of course, recalling the summonses with the screwed-up phone number on them. "Nothing like this has ever happened before," Rob explains. "We have no policy established for something like this.") But why are summonses still going out with Irnalee's number on them? "The criminal justice system is so huge," says Rob "you're dealing with so many people. These things just get lost." Irnalee remembers Rob's apology, but she's still a little upset at his response. "He suggested I change my phone number," says Irnalee. That's right: A state bureaucrat has suggested Irnalee Stohrs actually change the phone number she has had since 1959, because of a state printing error. I'm sure you understand Irnalee's chagrin. The trouble is, the juvenile court system doesn't seem to understand her chagrin. What's the big deal about a few hundred wrong numbers? they seem to be saying to Irnalee. So let's help the county understand what a nuisance it is, always getting someone else's calls. Let's all pick up our phones on Monday morning, and call the correct number for the county juvenile justice system. It's (503) 248-3460. Only when they answer, let's ask for Irnalee Stohrs. And then let's see how fast the justice system prints up a new batch of sumonses. With the right phone number on them. ---------------- [Moderator's Note: Bravo, and thanks for an interesting article. I assume TELECOM Digest readers around the world are invited to join the call-a-thon in progress; that'll add about thirty thousand calls! :) T'would be a pity if the courthouse operator -- the one who got ignorant with Irnalee on her first call -- got trashed out and had to go home with a headache a couple days in a row. I had to practice the very same guerrilla warfare twenty years ago. My telephone number appeared in error on a list of janitors assigned to various apartment buildings here belonging to one real estate company. They flatly ignored my requests to correct their list. I finally started taking tenant complaint calls, and giving smart aleck answers back; i.e. tenant says 'no heat in my apartment', my answer would be to consult my imaginary roster of tenants and reply, "The rent you pay does not entitle you to have heat in the winter." Tenant says 'my toilet is out of order', my answer would be to use the one at the gas station on the corner instead. Finally the realtor got the hint and corrected the list they gave tenants. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again Date: 26 Aug 90 22:51:21 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY In article <11328@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: [ That he has ten phone lines in his home, and he's been getting calls from the San Jose Mercury News boiler-room telemarketers on every one of them and that he hasn't been getting any cooperation from the telemarketers in getting the calls to stop. ] # I told them that I considered this to be telephone harrasment. Then I # asked for a good reason for me not to turn the matter over to my # attorney for civil action. The reason one of them gave was, "This is a # major telemarketing effort. It is virtually impossible to guarantee # that some specific numbers won't be called in light of how many # automated calls are made each day." Translation: Your telephone # tranquility and privacy, Mr. Higdon, is secondary to the larger # picture of telemarketing and commerce. My response was that I viewed # the situation in reverse. My peace and privacy would prevail over # their entire operation, if necessary. If I had to shut them down to # keep from getting further calls, that's what I would do. # Where did we leave it? They will block the entire 723 prefix from # their machine until they figure out how to REALLY block individual # numbers. (I guess all the previous conversations were just pissing in # the wind; they never were able to block as they had claimed.) If the # calls stop, that's just fine. I suggest you start sending them registered, return-receipt-requested letters of the "As we discussed in a telephone conversation earlier today.... " variety. Also, keep careful notes of your phone conversations with these people. You want to have evidence of your good-faith efforts if you do go to court on this. Have you tried going to the Merc to complain about what their contractors are doing in their name? Also, have you considered filing *CRIMINAL* harassment charges against the president of the company by name, and John Doe, Richard Roe, etc., being employees of that company acting on orders of the president. If you've considered it and rejected it, think again. This strikes me as being right down the middle of the definition of criminal harassment: They've been calling you ten times a night, on several nights, despite your repeated requests to stop. If they are found guilty, they'd be fined a couple of hundred bucks, which would probably not hurt them much, but you'll have achieved two goals: (1) You will have impressed them as being not just some moron off the streets, but rather someone with access to the courts and willingness to use them and (2) Perhaps more importantly, the defendants will be required to show up in court or face contempt charges and possible jail time. Let them learn what it's like to lose time to petty bullshit! Also, you may want to have your lawyer send them a letter demanding that they stop, for reasons similar to number one in the above paragraph -- let 'em take a gander at that law-firm letterhead and know you are not just some schmuck in a trailer-park. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so you take my advice at your own risk. (Actually, most people I know have learned better than to take *my* advice; that's why I've been forced to take my act to comp.dcom.telecom.... :-) As an afterthought, why do you have ringers on your modem lines, anyway? I don't even have a phone on my modem line; when I do get around to getting a cheapie to plug in there, I'll probably keep the ringer off. Everybody who knows me knows that I only answer the other line -- since I only dial out on the modem line, I couldn't even tell you off the top of my head what the number is.... ) Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ..uunet!utoday!wagner [Moderator's Note: Bravo number two! Really, the only thing some companies understand is repeated slaps with lawsuits; particularly in Small Claims/Pro Se Court, which they *hate*. And document *everything*, and every name, even the switchboard operator and the receptionist. Sue 'em all, individually and in their employment capacity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: What Hath God Wrought? Date: 28 Aug 90 01:55:56 GMT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <11313@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpubvwa!ssc!tad@beaver.cs. washington.edu (Tad Cook) writes: >S.F.B. Morse sent "What hath God Wrought?" when he demonstrated the >telegraph before members of Congress, when he was seeking backing for >his invention from the U.S. government. I wonder how the demo went. How did the observers verify that the message sent was the one received, and that no secret pre-demo arrangement had been made? I mean, they couldn't just phone Baltimore and ask! :-) Did they wait around for the train from Baltimore to arrive with a Congressman saying "We just got the message 'What hath God wrought?'. Is that what was sent?" David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Dunkin' Telephone Demilitarized Zone Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 14:50:23 CDT Jeff Carroll wrote in volume 10, issue 481: | This thread reminds me of a remarkable phenomenon I observed |on a recent trip to Chicago. At the Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines (on |Higgins, if I recall correctly), there are four pay phones; one next |to the entrance, and three on the back wall. My recollection is that |the one at the entrance and one of the ones on the back wall were |Centel phones, and the other two were operated by *Illinois Bell*. | Question: Are the IBT phones COCOTs? Or is the Dunkin' Doe |franchise located in some sort of Telephone Demilitarized Zone? No, there are no TDZ's here yet; I think the ICC is still mulling over local loop competition. It certainly isn't a reality in 1990. [There are several buildings along the Chicago/Park Ridge border that straddle the boundary between the two cities (and thus the boundaries of telqi, cable providers, natural gas suppliers, and area codes); all but one of them (several apartment buildings and single-family dwellings, no businesses) have an address in one city or the other and probably the utilities follow suit. One house has two addresses, apparently with Illinois Bell phone service from its Chicago side but Northern Illinois Gas from its Park Ridge side.] The clue of having both telqi at a Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines led me to the one on Elmhurst Road, just south of Thacker (barely in IBT territory), there being none on Higgins (there is one on Higgins in Elk Grove Village, the next town west, but it is very deep into IBT-Land). It had two Illinois Bell paystations and no COCOTs. However, the Dunkin' Donuts on Oakton, just west of Lee, well within Centel's satrapy, had almost what Jeff described: a Centel payphone in the vestibule and two paystations on the back wall, of which one was a second Centel coin phone and the other was a COCOT in a housing that resembles IBT payphones. Why any informed person would use the COCOT, except in an extreme emergency with both the Centel phones in use, is beyond me. Even then, there are a very large number of other retailers at Oakton and Lee, many of whom have Centel payphones at their establishments. I'll let the Digest readership know if I spot anything telephonically odd at the other Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines (at Rand and Miner) next time I'm in its vicinity. The recent increases in gasoline prices have cut seriously into my joyriding. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Area Code Data Requested Date: 27 Aug 90 19:18:19 GMT In article <11086@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye) writes: > I'm looking for this information because I find myself frequently > trying to get directory information about some company in some town > whose area code I can only guess at using the map in the book. > Incidently, while the placement of the state borders in the map is > pretty accurate, have a look at a real map and compare the location of > some of the cities on the area code map sometime when you need a > laugh. Trying to locate the right area code by triangulation is > clearly out. For figuring out area codes from addresses, I use "The Zip/Area Code Directory" by Ruth Marks, $4.95 from Pilot Books, 103 Cooper St, Babylon, NY 11702. This was suggested by someone else on TELECOM Digest. It works, although I did find a few errors. I understand they will be corrected in the next edition. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 04:16 EST From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: Last Laugh! Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? "Programmin' up a storm." writes ... >there IS a CCITT standard for "how to write your telephone number," >and it goes roughly like this: > +1 602 795 3955 >Because of the magic wonderfulness of the US country code being "1" >and the number we all use to access long distance being "1," this is >incredibly cosmic and confuses neither NA nor European subscribers. To the contrary, I would think it would confuses lots and lots of people, who would all ask ... "But where is the + on my telephone?" Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #602 ****************************** ISSUES 603 AND 604 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 603 FOLLOWS AFTER 604 NEXT.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28509; 29 Aug 90 5:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25596; 29 Aug 90 3:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30391; 29 Aug 90 2:31 CDT Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 2:10:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #604 BCC: Message-ID: <9008290210.ab07535@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Aug 90 02:09:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 604 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Gordon Burditt] Re: Thoughts on 900 Service [John Higdon] 900 Supervision [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Gary S. Mayhew] Those (900) Numbers [Sunday Tribune via Colum Mylod] 900 Lines - Cost - Blocking - Cutoff [News & Observer via Henry Schaffer] Re: What Hath God Wrought? [Mark Brader] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [David M. Archer] Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [John Boudreaux] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Date: 28 Aug 90 06:49:33 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual" >means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal This in of itself is objectionable when "causal" means billing the wrong person and ignoring consumer protection. Telephone companies have considerably more clout in billing, and Information Providers have no business piggybacking on the ability of telephone companies to cut off a very basic and essential service (telephone service) and to fall back on excuses that would sound extremely stupid outside the telephone business. Can you imagine MC Pizza claiming that you have to pay for their pizza anyway, because by "mistake" they switched your default pizza carrier to them, even though you ordered your pizzas from AT & Pizza? How often would Southwestern Pizza claim that they can't remove the charge for Extra Roaches because the tarrifs won't allow it? And Sprint Pizza threatening to cut off your water if you don't pay your pizza bill? The California PUC states that no one has lost telephone service because of delinquent 976/900 charges. Is that a decision or a statement of historical fact? If it's not a decision with the force of law, I'm not satisfied. The bills should be separate, and the bills for IP service should not be identifiable with a phone company. And the only thing a consistently-overdue IP bill should do to your phone service is demonstrate that you have intelligence not to pay it, and therefore you don't need to put down a deposit for your phone service. I've got a great idea! I have this home-improvement and repair company. I'll bill my services *ON YOUR ELECTRIC BILL*. I think you can imagine how renters who pay their own electric bill and are not enthusiastic about paying for maintenance which the landlord is supposed to pay will feel about that. And my magazine publisher can bill your subscription on your income tax - sorry about that mistake that caused the IRS to seize your car. Too bad the law won't let them give it back. >access to those services. Obviously, the moment you require a credit >card, you have just excluded a significant number of people. You have >also added a layer of billing complexity that would discourage some >from entering the IP business. The original thought was that anyone Um, you mean the people doing the billing might be able to find the IP for legal service, and that would discourage some people from going into the IP business? Southwestern Bell says it won't reveal who's behind 976 numbers even for people who have run up bills calling them. >It actually is a good idea in its purest form. IMHO, most of the >objection to these services is not related to the technical >implementation of the billing at all, but rather to the generally >sleazy material that has taken over the industry. A lot of people, >rather than being "unhip" criticizing the content, have concocted >objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976. I find this intellectually If, by "sleazy material", you mean material that might be considered "soft-pore cornography", I don't care. In my view, there is very little pornography in the world, and what little there is has been enacted into law by various legislatures under the category "obscenity laws", and other forms of censorship. 976/900 numbers encourage a sleazy way of doing business. You can't know the cost when you receive the information. If the ad lied about the charge, the phone company can hide behind the tarrifs. There is no customer service number to complain if all you heard was dead silence instead of the material you wanted. Phone companies let the IPs hide behind them without revealing their identities, but they can harass you with bills. If there was a way to deliver drugs over the telephone, the drug dealers would be in seventh heaven. They'd never have to face quality complaints from customers. On many numbers, the charge happens when you connect, but the information is useless unless they can get information from you, like your address (all those lines for getting a credit card or a loan) because the real service is delivered later by mail. Between that time, the call can disconnect, or an impasse can be reached: "We don't deliver to P.O. boxes" "But I don't have anything else!" "Sorry (click)(bye bye $$)". >a long way. And in all these years, I have yet to lose a dime to the >900/976 crowd. It's not really that hard to avoid. I doubt it. How much have businesses had to spend, in self-defense, on equipment to block numbers like this? (976 numbers have been around a lot longer than free blocking of them) You don't suppose they might pass on some of the extra cost to their customers, do you? And how about all the time telco customer service people spend removing charges? I bet the cost of extra people finds its way into the cost of residential phone service. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Thoughts on 900 Service Date: 27 Aug 90 12:01:44 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon On Aug 26 at 16:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: John, are you positive 900's are never translated > into POTS at the final destination? In California I'm about 99% sure. > [Moderator's Note: But if, as you pointed out earlier, the LEC is not > involved at all, with the 900 guys putting a dish on your roof, etc, > then *when* does the supervision take place? Who does it? PAT] When the IXC provides 900 service directly with, as you point out, a dish on your roof, it is fundamentally the same as if it came in as pairs from the LEC. T1 comes in from the short-haul microwave, is sent to Rockwell or Newbridge channel banks and comes out as tip and ring. When a call comes in, ring voltage supplied by the channel bank is put on the line. The answering equipment goes off-hook and the supervision is sent back towards the IXC's switch which in turn relays it on to the originating LEC. The only thing left out of the path is an LEC switch at the terminating end. The twenty-second chicken exit period begins when the answering machine goes off-hook. (Some newer equipment can accept the T-span directly, but the process is the same. Only the channel banks are eliminated.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: 900 Supervision From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:34:14 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Funny you should mention this. This is exactly what many 900 service > packages provide. Through a strange quirk of fate, I happen to know > that both Telesphere and Pac*Bell 900 allow about twenty seconds of > 900 supervision before the billing clock begins. IPs are admonished to > provide a "chicken exit" on their recorded intros so that inadvertant > callers can bail. > In a previous Digest there was an article by someone who was worried > that by simply dialing a 900 number and then instantly hanging up a > charge would appear on the bill. Even if there is no "chicken exit", a > 900 call must supervise just like any other for billing to begin. My roommate found out, the hard way, that this supervision delay isn't universally implemented. See, I didn't think about 900 blocking, and tried to call 900-410-8463 (the Naval Observatory Master Clock). I was informed that the service was unavailable on our line. My roomie then called one or another of these cheeseball 900 outfits on TV, on a whim, and the service answered! He had thought we were blocked, after my call had failed. The connection lasted seven or eight seconds, at the most. (Just long enough to hear "Thank you for...") Sure enough, the call appeared on that month's bill. This rather incensed the third roommate, who is the actual person on the billing. He _had_ ordered 900 blocking, and obviously it hadn't been turned on. A call to the USWest office cleared it up, and the charge was removed. Still, there was certainly no "chicken exit" period. Our LD carrier is Telecom*USA, if that makes a difference. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu [Moderator's Note: Here is an example of a 900 number which is routed to a POTS: The Naval Observatory Master Clock as noted above is reached at 900-410-TIME. But why pay 900 rates when you can call the clock on its POTS number: 202-653-1800 -- and pay 12 cents during the overnight hours! A public service message from TELECOM Digest! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Gary S. Mayhew" Subject: Re: Help With Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Date: 28 Aug 90 16:20:26 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <11423@accuvax.nwu.edu>, joymrmn!root@uunet.uu.net (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > A little investigation showed that the problem results from the fact > that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to > allow direct dialled international is allowed. Apparently the SL-1 > time out is longer than the trunk line '0' time out and the call does > not get blocked. Obviously, we could just require all calls starting > with '0' including '011' to go out over the toll trunks. However, we > have 200 rooms full of dialling instructions that would have to be > changed. > Are there any SL-1 experts out there that can suggest a work-around? > Perhaps changing some of the trunk timers? You can change most of the trunk timers through your local TTY device on your SL-1(?). Overlay 15 [Customer Data Block] allows you to set both your EOD timer for non-DTMF trunks and your ODT timer for DTMF trunks (``DIGITONE'' in NT nomenclature). Default settings are usually sufficient for most applications, however, you must have extremely fast CO trunks. Reducing the timer's values may indeed help your situation, but take heed ... too much will raise `havoc' with the people using the system. Try reducing EOD timer by 25% of the default, and ODT timer by the same. Consult the NTP's for more information. Reach me by one of the methods below if you wish to discuss in depth. Gary S. Mayhew Internet: GSM@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: GSM%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet State College, PA. USA UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gsm (814) 238-4311; 237-6345{DID}; 234-7720{FAX} ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Those (900) Numbers Date: 28 Aug 90 21:10:53 GMT Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands It's interesting all those opinions on premium-line/900 numbers, but they are for profit and no-one NEEDS to dial them in any case. But what if you do? From the Quotes section of "The Sunday Tribune" dated 19 August: "Calls to this line are charged at 25p per minute cheap rate and 38p per minute all other times." - British Foreign Office answering ma- chine for concerned relatives of those trapped in the Gulf. (These are the charges for the BT 898 service, not the normal trunk charges.) Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO [Moderator's Note: Isn't it pretty rotten when someone wants to make a profit from a family's concern and grief about their loved one? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: 900 Lines - Cost - Blocking - Cutoff Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 02:12:43 GMT The son of a North Carolina resident ran up almost $4,000 in 900-number calls (without the father's permission.) The phone company, Central Telephone of Hickory, cut off his service. The cutoff came after the resident "had tried to have the calls from his line blocked." Information and quote from an editorial, "Trouble on the 900 line" in the Monday, Aug. 27, {News and Observer}, Raleigh, NC. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: What Hath God Wrought? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 01:28:55 -0400 Some recent items have had it that Morse invented telegraphy. Isaac Asimov says otherwise. From "Asimov's New Guide to Science": # For the work that led to the early application of electricity # to technology, the lion's share of the credit must fall to # Joseph Henry. Henry's first application of electricity was the # invention of telegraphy. He devised a system ... [where] the dying # signal [would] activate a small electromagnet that operated a switch # that turned on a boost in power from stations placed at appropriate # intervals. Thus a message consisting of coded pulses of electricity # could be sent for a considerable distance. Henry actually built a # telegraph that worked. # Because he was an unworldly man, who believed that knowledge should # be shared with the world and therefore did not patent his discoveries, # Henry got no credit for this invention. The credit fell to ... Morse. # With Henry's help, freely given (but later only grudgingly acknowledged), # Morse built the first practical telegraph in 1844. Morse's main original # contribution to telegraphy was the system of dots and dashes known as # the Morse Code. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 29 Aug 90 05:57:30 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, they will bill you through your local phone company. When I had a new line installed, I requested Sprint as my long distance company. About a year and a few months later, when I actually got Sprint as my long distance company, I was calling long distance a bit more than I normally do. I was getting my bill directly from Sprint. Then after a few months, my long distance calling went back down to it's normal level of maybe 1 or 2 calls every couple months. I'm now getting my Sprint bill in with the regular phone bill. So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard. I'm sure that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and ask them. I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not terribly concerned, yet. ------------------------------ From: John Boudreaux Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit Date: 29 Aug 90 05:04:45 GMT Followup-To: johnb@jbx.com Organization: JBX Consulting I've been blessed(cursed) with hooking up some 1A2 stuff. Anyone know where I can get the wiring layout etc for it? I thought I had it all but ... It works, but no lights and no interupter and hold hangs up the line? John Boudreaux INTERNET: johnb@jbx.com JBX UUCP: ...!uunet!jbx!johnb *Disclaimer* - I Don't Care What Anyone Thinks of My Views ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #604 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28549; 29 Aug 90 5:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25596; 29 Aug 90 3:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30391; 29 Aug 90 2:31 CDT Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 1:33:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #603 BCC: Message-ID: <9008290133.ab29291@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:32:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 603 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Is My AOS Cheating? [Scott Fybush] MCI International Information [Andy Rabagliati] Looking For a Good Home Intercom System [Gordon Edwards] Wanted: Connectors for 1A2 KSU's [Steve Pershing] Intercept Recordings [Roy M. Silvernail] ATT/Sprint Conference Calls Comparison [John R. Levine] Voice/Fax/Modem Switches Revisited [cup.portal.com!fleming] Re: Answering Phrase [Rich Zellich] Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting [Steck Thomas] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Mark Elkins] Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Clive Dawson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 03:47:55 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Is My AOS Cheating? Just recently, operator-assisted calls through Telesphere from Brandeis have become partially automated. Dialing 9+0+NPA+ number+ Brandeis access code now yields a recorded "please enter your card number now or dial 0 for an operator." So far, so good, but upon entering the card number, a staticky voice asks you to "please wait." After nearly a 20-second wait, the call either goes through or gets a "this is not a valid card number" recording. This sounds to me very much like the traditional AOS scam of trying the card number by placing a call through ATT, then approving the call only if the ATT-placed call goes through. And _that_ practice is clearly unethical and (I think) illegal. So, how do I prove that that's what International Telesphere is doing, and, once proven, how do I shut the scumbags down? BTW, I've _never_ been stupid enough to actually allow an operator-assisted or card call to go through on Telesphere; the Telesphere operators can (grudgingly) connect you to ATT, thank God. Scott Fybush / kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu [Moderator's Note: It is illegal, and AT&T has sued before because of this. There's a few AT&T security guys who read the Digest, and perhaps they will be motivated to check things out at the Telesphere point of presence wherever they are at picking up Brandeis traffic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: MCI International Information Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 17:49:19 GMT Today I attempted to get a phone number in the UK from MCI. They said to call 10288-0 - which, as you are aware, is the access code for AT&T, to the operator. Our Company PBX is blocked from alternate carrier access - I get a busy signal after 10. I called MCI back again - they advised me to call 800-874-4000, which turned out to be AT&T, who informed me politely that they could not connect me with directory information, and that I should dial 10ATT-0. I then called MCI customer service, who asked if I could call from a payphone (!!) in the building. We have no payphone here. I then called our company telecom personnel, who immediately conferenced in the MCI rep. in Dallas. Her suggestion was to call the 800 number, and say that AT&T was my long distance carrier!! This in front of our company telecom person. I think that this is poor service from MCI. I think that AT&Ts position is entirely reasonable - it is an 800 number, and therefore paid for by AT&T - why should I call them for free, and then use MCI to call international if they do not have the support? Cheers, Andy Rabagliati EMAIL:- rabagliatia@isnet.inmos.COM [Moderator's Note: While you are at it, why not call in whoever does your PBX programming and ask him when he can get his act together and correct the *illegal* blocking of 10xxx. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon Edwards Subject: Looking For a Good Home Intercom System Date: 29 Aug 90 01:10:05 GMT Organization: NCR Engineering & Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA I am looking for a good inexpensive home intercom system that will support at least three stations. Each station needs to be able to 'call' the other stations (not individually). I would like a system that doesn't require any wiring but could use existing phone wire (either the first phone line or the second set of phone wires at each jack) or could use the power lines inside the house. I have tried the set that Radio Shack has on sale for $60.00 that use the AC lines in the house but they have a loud buzzing sound on all boxes and some intercoms can not reach other ones within the house on the same wiring system. I would like to have one intercom in each room and another in the kitchen. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Internet: Gordon.Edwards@Atlanta.NCR.COM NCR Corporation UUCP: uunet!ncrlnk!ncratl!gedwards 2651 Satellite Blvd. Amateur Radio: N4VPH Duluth, GA 30136 ------------------------------ Subject: Wanted: Connectors for 1A2 KSU's From: Steve Pershing Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 18:57:09 PDT Organization: The Questor Project: FREE Public Access for All callers! A friend of mine who has a couple of junked 1A2 KSU's is looking for a quantity of 40 to 50 scrapped connectors (40-pin, that is 2-rows of 20 pins each) for WECo or NECo 1A2 KSU's. I suspect he would be willing to pay a reasonable price. Please post any sources directly to my "domain" address. Much thanks. Internet: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca | POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Phones: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682-6659 | Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681-0670 | Canada V6E 4L2 ------------------------------ Subject: Intercept Recordings From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:39:43 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical, slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached, xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx." I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx"? Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu [Moderator's Note: Did I get a strange one Sunday night! I had finished an international call and immediatly flashed and dialed 00 to get AT&T for another call. It rang once, and a recording said, "This is TS-6, Frame 2, Rogers Park". I hung up, dialed 00 a second time, and got the recording a second time. Third time around, I got the operator. I never was able to get it again. Any ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: ATT/Sprint Conference Calls Comparison Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 15:51:14 EDT From: "John R. Levine" I have been making a fair number of conference calls lately, so I thought I'd see what the competition is like. The only two carriers I could find that provide conference service are AT&T and Sprint. (MCI said they don't.) Here's the comparison of AT&T Alliance and Sprint FON Conference. AT&T also still has their old operator completed conference service which seems noisier and more expensive except for very long (many hour) conferences. ACCESS: AT&T: Dial 0-700-456-1000 if you want to dial it yourself, 1-800-544-6363 if you want operator assistance. Sprint: Dial 1-800-FON-CONF for a Sprint conference operator. SETUP: AT&T: If you dialed the 700 number, you dial the numbers yourself, and dial # to add them to the conference, * to hang up on them. (There are voice prompts.) For operator dialed calls, you give them your list of names and numbers. You are encouraged but not required to call ahead to reserve operator assisted conferences. If you don't reserve, they don't promise that the capacity will be available. Operator dialed calls are placed person-to-person. Sprint: Call at least 15 minutes ahead to schedule the call and tell them who to call. They call you back. All calls are placed person-to-person. CALL QUALITY: In my experience, both are very good. They both have digital conference bridges that keep the noise way down. In both cases you can get an operator during the conference (dial #0 or 0 respectively) but I've never needed to do so. COST: AT&T: 25 cents/minute/location plus toll charges. You pay the toll charge from the caller to the conference bridge, and from the bridge to each callee. There are four bridges in White Plains, Chicago, Dallas, and Reno; normally you get the closest one, but you can call a specific bridge if most of your callees are nearer to it. If the operator dials the call, there is a setup charge of (I believe) $3/location. You can call any dialable number in the world. Sprint: Setup charge of $3/location plus 44 cents/location/minute anywhere in the US. I don't know if they allow foreign locations. BILLING: AT&T: Billed to the calling number, or to a third party if they accept the charge. You can't charge to a calling card. Sprint: They mail you a separate bill, even if you're a Sprint subscriber. (How quaint.) No other billing options, though it seems they'll send the bill anywhere you tell them to. OTHER NOTES: AT&T has a "call me" conference which is assigned its own 700 number for the duration of the call so that people can call in themselves. There is a large extra charge for this. Calls to the 700 number can be billed to the caller or to the conference originator. This seems useful if you don't know where your participants are, e.g. salesmen calling in from the road. The rate structures are quite different -- Sprint is cheaper for calls during the day and people far away. AT&T customer-dialed is cheaper at night and for calls with people closer together. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA also provides operator assisted conference calling via their calling card and 800 number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@uunet.uu.net Subject: Voice/Fax/Modem Switches Revisited Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 03:44:56 PDT Several months ago, there was a discussion in the Digest of voice/fax and voice/fax/modem switches. Not having a fax machine, I skipped these messages. Now, the Tooth Fairy has left a fax machine on my doorstep and I really want to set it up for unattended operation. Is there any consensus on which of these units is best? Which is least irritating to human callers? How about a good mail order source (are the Damark ones any good)? Any assistance would be appreciated. (Note: I do not have access to the Telecom Archives... sorry.) Stephen Fleming fleming@cup.portal.com CI$: 76354,3176 BIX: srfleming | My employers may disagree vehemently. | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 9:11:08 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Answering Phrase My answering machine says "Hi, this is Rich and Michelle's. Please leave your message..." (or, during immediate pre-convention season "Hi, this is the Archon hotline, also known as Rich and Michelle's. Please leave...". This immediately lets callers know they've reached the right (or wrong) place, yet gives neither a number or last name for random-dialing harassment callers to use in calling you again. I could answer the phone myself the same way, which would probably be useful to callers, but a lifetime of simply saying "hello" is hard to overcome (except when I answer with "telephone" every once in a blue moon). ------------------------------ From: Steck Thomas Subject: Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting Date: 28 Aug 90 14:52:43 GMT Reply-To: Steck Thomas Organization: Johns Hopkins University The Moderator wrote, some time ago: >force its way onto the line instead. Call-waiting is not compatible >with any electronic device which depends on changes in line voltage or >what it 'hears' on the line to decide what to do. Modems, hold >circuits, you name it. It even makes some PBX's think the call they >are handling is complete and should be disconnected. PAT] PAT - I beg to differ with you on this one. On the older switching systems, this may have been true. However, on the new ATT 5ESS and the Northern Telecom DMS-100, call waiting is not implemented as a voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line. There is no true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..) like there used to be. Tom Steck ------------------------------ From: Mark J Elkins Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 28 Aug 90 06:27:35 GMT Reply-To: Mark J Elkins Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa) In article <11160@accuvax.nwu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 585, Message 6 of 14 >In this city, a local phone call of unlimited length has fixed cost. As used to be the case in Johannesburg ... (Until 'local' meters were installed ... Local calls in most other areas are still unlimited by time.) >.... In other words, for a >monthly call waiting charge, you could get a permanent, basically free >connection to the computer of your choice. >... But what would the phone companies think of people getting >connections so cheaply? As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem use. His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends). When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so he was forced to make at least one call a day. They don't like people doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which costs a lot more per month. Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins) mje@olsa99.UUCP (Postmaster) Tel: +27 11 339 9093 ------------------------------ From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC. Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 11:19:50 GMT In article <11392@accuvax.nwu.edu> mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) writes: >Here in Corpus Christi, TX, a machine aparently makes the rounds of >various organizations (I hear of it as being resold often) with a >similiar flaw. On several occasions, my voice and modem lines got >calls from this thing. [...] This same sleeze machine would not >release your line for two minutes (length of pitch). Quite an annoyance. Does anyone know if whistling a 2600 hz note into the phone would break this call off? "But officer, I was just doing that to disconnect a telemarketer..." Wolfgang Rupprecht uunet!nancy!wsrcc!wolfgang Internet: nancy!wsrcc!wolfgang@uunet.uu.net Snail Mail Address: Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524 ------------------------------ Date: Tue 28 Aug 90 16:28:18-CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers George, Great article! I hope you'll keep TELECOM Digest posted of any developments on this. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of different news stories talking about how the Juvenile Court phone system was paralyzed, how the county decided to sue the newspaper and columnist for "irresponsible behavior" etc... Clive P.S. I tried calling the court several times just a few minutes ago, and got nothing but a busy signal... [Moderator's Message: I got a busy signal several times also, but my Demon Dialer came to the rescue and kept pounding away. I never did actually reach anyone. A couple calls did get through: on one, it rang *37 times* and was finally picked up with the response "please hold", and dead silence; no one ever returned to the line as of when I abandoned the call about a minute later. On the other answered call, it rang about a dozen times, a voice answered "Operator", said "Hello?" and disconnected. I'd say the board must have driven 'em crazy the past couple days! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #603 ****************************** ISSUE 604 IS FILED BEFORE 603 DUE TO BEING REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 605 IS NEXT.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09955; 30 Aug 90 3:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11320; 30 Aug 90 2:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26234; 30 Aug 90 0:51 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 0:25:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #605 BCC: Message-ID: <9008300025.ac23219@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 00:25:07 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 605 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Linc Madison] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barrey Jewall] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Rolf Meier] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Craig R. Watkins Re: Automated Directory Assistance [Steve Lemke] Re: Answering Phrase [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [D. Archer] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [J. Higdon] Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands [Piet van Oostrum] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:15:38 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: University of California, Berkeley I have a very simple (and legal!) method of evading payment for calls to my parents. If I'm home, I call them. I say, "Mom." My mother says, "Do you want us to call you?" I say, "Yes." We hang up, I pay anywhere from 12c to 25c for the privilege, she calls me back. If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX." Because of the "Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call. If I'm farther afield than that, I just call on AT&T and bill to my parents' calling card number, but in that case the one-ring scheme doesn't work, and the operator is likely to get suspicious about my calling p-to-p and asking for a callback to a roadside payphone, so the 80c surcharge is worth the savings in trouble. Seriously, with one-minute calls from a residence as cheap as they now are, I can't justify using some cumbersome ringing/collect/person scheme to get my parents to call me. I can afford 12c for a half-hour call half way across the country, and my parents don't call me every time someone hangs up on a wrong number. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: You are not 'evading' payment (illegal). You are legitimatly reducing the costs of your calls. (legal). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 29 Aug 90 14:19:10 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In article <11395@accuvax.nwu.edu>, radius!lemke@apple (Steve Lemke) writes: |Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I |would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang |up). He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever |answering the phone. I used something similar to let my computer pickup the phone when I wanted to login from the office: the computer would pick up the phone when a SINGLE ring would be followed by another ring after 15-30 sec. This will hardly ever happen by accident, and is also easily recognised by human beings. The 15-30 seconds was just enough to redial the number on an old fashioned rotary dial. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ From: Barrey Jewall Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 29 Aug 90 16:25:09 GMT Reply-To: Barrey Jewall Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia In article <11373@accuvax.nwu.edu> danj1@ihlpa.att.com (Daniel Jacobson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 597, Message 6 of 11 >Are there any cases of people using the utterly cheapskate idea of >sending morse code via ring length to the other party? >{\Law_Abiding_Tone=on One would hope that telcos can detect this so us >regular folks' phone bills aren't subsidising all night (1 baud?) >style communication. } Maybe this is why my phone will ring about five times (seperated by a few seconds), usually at about 5:30 AM. Someone must be trying to send me a message! If I find the guy who is doing this, I would like to devise a real nasty method for ending his life. The first call rings until I pick up th phone, at which time I am treated to the merry sound of DTMF (two or three key, I think), and then he hangs up. For about the next five or six MINUTES, this idiot redials my number, lets it ring once, and hangs up and redials... Telco (Pac*Bell) says change my number, and become unlisted... Maybe I should look into an ANI here ... (Not sure about the California law on them things, anyone know? - No, don't lets start a discussion here again, but E-Mail me if you have any pertinent info.) >[Moderator's Note: Regardless of the exact methods used, whenever the >telephone service is manipulated to deliver a coded message -- be it >by a certain ringing pattern; coded messages unwittingly delivered by >the operator; or whatever -- telco says a message has been delivered. >If they cannot prove that is what you did -- or can't conveniently >prove it -- then of course they write it off. But these techniques are >as old as the phone itself, and telco knows all the tricks. PAT] Awhile ago, this used to take place: About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to person collect , for some guy I've never heard of, and when I reply that he's not here, and I don't know when he will be, the operator (AT&T) usually asked if my mom wants to leave a message for him, and she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then I called my mom. Doesn't seem like they care that much. BTW- My mom had never recieved a bill for these calls, in about eight years. Postscript to the MCI switchover racket: A friend of mine, who was quite happy with AT&T, answered the phone about a month ago, and lo and behold, it was MCI. Well , he was kinda busy with his SO at the time, so he hung up on the guy after learning it was MCI. He related this tale to me one night, and I recalled the discussion here a while back, and suggested it might be a good idea to check his LD carrier, well, he called the 700 number, and sure enough, MCI!!!! Took him about two months to get things straight, though. He actually took MCI for about 150 bucks in LD calls, because he was buying some property in Alaska, and was on the phone constantly that month. That's all for now, Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 29 Aug 90 17:36:52 GMT Reply-To: Rolf Meier Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <11372@accuvax.nwu.edu> hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com writes: >extended area service, so I could call them free. If they called me, >they would hang up after two rings. I would always let the phone ring >at least three times. Thus, if there were only two rings, I would call This trick is not reliable. The ringback tone you hear does not necessarily correspond to the ringing at the other end. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Date: 28 Aug 90 11:32:01 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <11410@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > On a different subject, are long-distance DA calls from pay > phones supposed to be free? I don't know of anywhere which requires free LD DA calls from pay phones. However, when I use AT&T and use my calling card to "pay" for the LD DA call, it never appears on my bill. I don't know if there is any limit per month or a requirement that a matching number of toll LD calls be placed, etc. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: Steve Lemke Subject: Re: Automated Directory Assistance Date: 29 Aug 90 06:06:44 GMT }[Moderator's Note: Incidentally, if you hear a pre-recorded greeting }which sounds noisy, muffled, or otherwise not the best, tell the }operator about it. I do, and they are always glad to find out and will }usually record it over again. And for anyone who answers the phone }quite frequently each day, you can get the same little gizmo the }operators use for their answer phrase from the {Hello Direct} catalog. }They are devices to have, and help save your voice. PAT] Can you tell us more about this device? How much does it cost? How does it interface to the phone and/or line? Where exactly can one get it from? Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) [Moderator's Note: The one I saw is just a little unit, much smaller than a desk (Model 500) phone. The phone line plugs into it, then it has a jumper which plugs into the back of the phone. A chip inside stores about a five second message which you record (or re-record) at any time. When you answer a call, take the receiver off hook and hit the button on the unit. It feeds the pre-recorded message out to the line. This will typically just be your name and number, or department, or whatever you ordinarily say when you answer the phone. The caller hears it, starts talking, and you take over in your own voice at that point. The appropriate use for the device is to answer incoming calls where you get several dozen to several hundred per day. It saves several minutes of speaking each day for phone operators; receptionists, etc. Inquire from Hello Direct: 1-800-HI-HELLO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: Answering Phrase Date: 29 Aug 90 05:43:08 GMT Reply-To: amdcad!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA In <11408@accuvax.nwu.edu> psrc@mtunq.att.com (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: >At the office, I always answer with the name of the company and my >name. It has just the right effect on wrong number callers; if >they're expecting to reach someone at the Labs, they ask if I know how >I can reach someone (and I can usually transfer them); if not, they >apologize and hang up. Lucky you. Mine just hang up. I really do wonder what's going on at that motel.... But I'm reminded of a joke. Once a guy was manning the desk at some installation called Military Air Reconnaisance Support (or something like that), when the phone rang. He pick up the receiver and said, "MARS, Sergeant Wolowitz speaking." A moment of silence, and a voice at the other end said, "Jeesh, I *know* I didn't dial long distance!" It might even be true. I mean who would *invent* those jokes they publish in {Reader's Digest}, huh? ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo Disclaimer: I am what I am, and that's all what I am! [Moderator's Note: I heard AT&T was going to start a new program called "Reach Out Outer Space" but they abandoned it when they experienced difficulty getting billing information back on a timely basis. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 29 Aug 90 08:32:59 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <11444@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mje99!mje@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Mark J Elkins) writes... >As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem >use. His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is >about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends). >When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some >manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so >he was forced to make at least one call a day. They don't like people >doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which >costs a lot more per month. Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this? I've never heard of a maximum period of time for a phone call. I consulted my phone book, and the term it uses is untimed. I'd call the customer representatives once a day and request a credit. After all, my phone call was interrupted by them, and so their "equipment failure" required me to make a second phone call. Seems appropriate to me. I ask about this, because I can quite easily see myself doing something similiar in the future. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 29 Aug 90 03:57:34 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Steck Thomas writes: > PAT - I beg to differ with you on this one. On the older switching > systems, this may have been true. However, on the new ATT 5ESS and > the Northern Telecom DMS-100, call waiting is not implemented as a > voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line. There is no > true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..) > like there used to be. But even on these digital switches, the talk path is interrupted for the duration of the "beep". In most cases, this is enough for a modem to consider that there has been carrier loss and to hang up. There may be no clicks, but there is definately interruption of the line. If you don't believe me, call someone on a 5ESS or DMS100 who has call waiting and have them hum into the line. Then call them on another phone and see if you don't hear the person disappear for a moment. But that's all quite moot. There are so many 1AESS switches that will be around for so long as to make it impossible to discount their presence in the telecom world. Even the ancient 1ESS "serving" my home phone is not scheduled for replacement. ("Hell, we wouldn't want to waste money replacing THAT -- it still completes calls sometimes, doesn't it?") John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands Date: 29 Aug 90 14:41:47 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In article <11383@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnl@esegue (John R. Levine) writes: |WRT the note that you can't call anywhere collect from the |Netherlands, AT&T's International Information people say that you can |indeed call collect from the Netherlands via USA Direct. Does the |Dutch PTT know about that? You can call collect to other countries (but not all) even through the Dutch operator. At least that is what my telephone directory says. The directory says that the extra costs are Dfl 5.00 for a collect call, as well as for person-to-person and credit card calls. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #605 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11002; 30 Aug 90 5:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05901; 30 Aug 90 3:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11320; 30 Aug 90 2:10 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 1:35:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #606 BCC: Message-ID: <9008300135.ab17663@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 01:35:24 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 606 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson We Are Flooded! No More Messages, Please [TELECOM Moderator] Telephone Cable Color Code (was: USOC Book) [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Donald E. Kimberlin] Home Intercom Using Telephones [Peter G. Capek] West German Toll-Free Numbers are [Nigel Roberts] The COCOTs Are Coming to Europe [Nigel Roberts] File Format for AT&T VoicePower Board or VSF Products? [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez] "Air Time" Charges for Unanswered Cellular Calls [Richard B. August] Explain This Conversation [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 1:19:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: We Are Flooded! No More Messages, Please Due to a problem with the computer at this site being extremely sluggish today, it has taken approximatly *four hours* to create this Digest. Something is going on that has brought the machine to an almost virtual halt. Messages are flooding in; there is at present a *three day backlog* of messages for the Digest. I have FIVE special issues to be released in the next couple of days. Since messages received Thursday and Friday will not appear for a few days, I must ask that you stop sending all traffic to this account at this time, and resume following the holiday. Please do not 're' any existing messages unless you feel yours is so different and special that it must be seen. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:57:17 CDT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Telephone Cable Color Code (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book) In article (Digest v10, iss 588), AJ writes: >Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal >Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch >down on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables? The fabled "Blue-Orange-Green-Brown-Slate" of North American telephone cables is a real "fun" standard, AJ. Most people think it was set up by Bell, of course, and it might indeed well have been. I have some (rather spiffy circular slide-rule/chart) documents from Western Union citing "Western Electric" as the source. However, these are recent enough (1950's) that WECo had certainly been manufacturing to them for several decades. It turns out that the"Blue-Orange-Green-Brown-Slate" IS the "standard" of an organized group you might have fun tracking down. The standard number (S-83, as I recall), is from the Insulated Cable Engineers Association, listed in the "Encyclopedia of Associations" as resident at a phone in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. That reference says the ICEA has been around since 1927. My gut feeling makes that a vintage year for the color code to have been "standardized" by somebody. I ran across the reference in standards work on wiring in buildings per EIA TR 41.8. However, that path ran dry when I found the ICEA phone number really was a point in the North American network you couldn't get to from here. All sorts of peculiar recordings and no assistance operator that could or would help. It all led me to wonder if, in fact, the ICEA was resident in telephone Oz. If you REALLY want the document, I suggest you start back with the Encyclopedia of Associations listing at the library to validate the number and such. (In fact, tracking that number and its routing problem sounds like the sort of dialing adventure some of our more intrepid Digest readers take on as their challenges of choice.) As to the USOC book, its purpose is not to list the color code, and I wouldn't expect you'll find any indications there. Universal Service Order Codes have become one of the true "phone business" oxymoronic contradictions in terms. Once a stellar monopoly-era Bell System attempt to automate and standardize ordering and billing codes for service orders, that system never did get very well standardized as the Bell people kept finding and attempting to rationalize all the variations the local operating company people had. And, the local people of different companies invented different USOCs for the same thing, sometimes even division by division of the same company. Today, there are as many "USOC books" as there are Telcos ... all of them "Universal." If you don't believe me, ask them! Whatever one they have, it's LAW. If you don't believe me, ask them again! If you really WAMT a "USOC book," prepare yourself for another adventure in "Telephony by Oz." You will be constantly assured that you have the right to have one, because it's public information. However, you'll also be told that the "nasty lawyers" of the Telco always have the "nice guy" employee you get on the phone stonewalled, and there's just no one for you to talk to about it. (Oh, there are USOC books in circulation, always in the hands of someone who has a "friend on the inside." These are usually recent 20-30 year retirees who know where to call for a 'sub rosa' copy.) But, you'll still find no color code in the USOC book. Even the various Plant Practices (BSP, GSP, CSP, you-name-it SP) practices hardly ever mention the color code, because it's something everybody "just knows," or it _might_ be on the drawing for a particular assembly ... but in the USOC book? Uh-uh. I'd be interested to hear what adventures AJ and others have tracking along this route, either to USOC books or the color code "standard." (Those who want the color code recited from memory can get any of a number of us old crustaceans to recite it for an hourly fee, I'm sure. Rates similar to those of Bhuddist monks and Tibetan prayer-wheel makers.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 22:57:56 CDT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? In article (Digest V10, iss594), Joel writes: >In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this >nature in this newsgroup have good answers in the E-series >recommendations: the touch tones, why the tri-tone is SO DAMN LOUD, >etc. If the Moderator agrees, I'd be willing to type in some of the >"official CCITT" answers to some of the more commonly and hotly >debated questions here. Note, of course, that the CCITT is the CCITT >and Bell is/was Bell, so no answer is authoritative -- and the history >is often more interesting than the answer. To which I must say, "Amen, Brother Snyder." I hope you will become the resident reference authority, and to give the readers some sense of antiquity to their many discoveries, quote some of the heading material in the Recommendations that shows a lot of these "standards" have been in the CCITT books since it was called the CCIF and the CCIT. And, don't make it just the "E" series, but show them the "F" series on registered cable addresses and such, the "G" series about analog and digital transmission, and dig out others as they come up. It seems to me the Digest goes around in loops about certain topics as new readers come on board and recite the latest misleading tripe they got from their local telco about "standards." Whose "standards," indeed? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 22:02:57 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Home Intercom System: Call Manager I In TELECOM Digest 10.603, Gordon Edwards asks about home intercoms. His question seems like a good spur for me to mention something I have installed at home called Call Manager I. I've had it installed for several months and have been quite happy with it. Unfortunately, the device itself doesn't give any identifying information, and I've misplaced the manual which came with it, so I can't immediately give the manufacturer's name. It was a gift, so I can't quote a price. This product provides the ability to use telephones installed on the same line as an intercom. It connects (as would a Demon Dialer; I'm not sure if both could feasibly be installed on the same line) just inside the demarcation point, and works by allowing a user at a phone to cause all the phones installed on the line to ring. It affects the operation of the phones only when invoked, which is done by a switchhook flash. It can be invoked either by picking up the phone, getting a dial tone and flashing (it responds with 2 beeps, "hangs up" the phone line, and waits for you to proceed), or by flashing when a call is established (it puts the call on "hold" and responds with 3 beeps). In either case, the user can then dial (on pulse phones) a number from 1 to 6, and hang up. This selects 1 of 6 distinct ringing cadences, which is applied to all connected phones. When the ringing stops, you know that one of the other phones has been picked up, and you can pick up and be connected to that person, and also to the phone line, if a call had been in progress. If you do this from a touch-tone phone, it is a bit more of a nuisance to select a ringing cadence other than "1" because you have to push ANY tone button the appropriate number of times. (It doesn't distinguish the tones from one another.) There's only two of us, so we don't particularly care about the distinctive rings, but they're intended to be assigned to different occupants of the house. One thing that is lacking which I think would have been nice is a continuous ring, so that it would have been immediately apparent to the caller when the other party picked up, rather than waiting for the start of the next ring phase. It also seems appropriate to mention that it does require a 110 volt outlet near where it is installed for power. The documentation for installation also left something to be desired. But once installed, it works well. Usual disclaimers apply. Peter Capek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:41:38 PDT From: "Nigel Roberts, 0860 578600" <"iosg::robertsn"@iosg.enet.dec.com> Subject: W. German Toll-Free Numbers Reportedly, W. German toll-free service has eliminated the local call charge as of August 1. My wife read this in STERN or SPIEGEL or something when we were in Germany at the weekend, but I don't have a reference. (Can anyone confirm or deny?) 0130 numbers (originall called _Bundesweit zum Ortstarif_ service -- I don't know if there's a new name) are the nearest German equivalent to U.S.A. toll-free (800) and U.K. LinkLine (0800) service. Previously, 0130 numbers were charged as if the call was a local call (like the underused U.K. 0345 service). One other piece of telecom trivia which came my way recently is that a U.K. direct service is likely to be instituted from Germany using an 0130 number in the coming months. This information came from BTI. W. Germany does not allow collect (reverse-charge) and credit card calls either to or from foreign countries. The reason for this was the fact that they have very few operators, but the Bundespost (recently renamed Telekom) is now apparently prepared to consider Home Country Direct services. Nigel Roberts; Orichalk Ltd (on contract to DEC) Tel: +44 206 396610 & +44 860 578600 Fax: +44 206 393148 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 09:14:00 PDT From: "Nigel Roberts, (0860" Subject: The COCOTs Are Coming to Europe On several trips around Europe recently I have noticed a credit card operated telephone at various airports operated by a company called CCC. After the education I've received here in the Digest, it pretty much screamed "Hello, I'm a COCOT" at me! (Thanks, folks!). The one I tried in Luxemburg a couple of months ago didn't work, and I couldn't even reach their problem reporting service. Servisair, an otherwise excellent and reputable company, which is a large ground handling agent, has recently installed one in their VIP lounge at Heathrow (presumably also at Stansted and other British airports). I've seen them elsewhere, too, though I can't remember where -- possibly in the British Airways Club lounge in Terminal 4. As I had a couple of hours to wait for my flight to Hamburg on Friday, I decided to check it out. The rates charged by this phone appear to be pretty COCOT-sized; 120 pence (about $2.35) per minute, if I understood the sign on the phone correctly. (A peak rate call to Germany on British Telecom costs approximate 84 pence/minute between 8:00-20:00, 68 pence /minute between 20:00-08:00) when made from a public call box -- this information from British Telecom International on 0800 272 172). So I just used the neighbouring coin-phone and my BT chargecard via 144 dialling to get BTIs normal dialled rates as above (plus 20p facility fee) to call my relatives to let them know of a flight delay. Oh yes, and of course the COCOT blocked 144 access! By the way, the public payphones at Heathrow are now pretty evenly split between British Telecom and Mercury. The Mercury ones don't take coins -- you have to use a pre-payment card, or a major credit card. But they aren't COCOTS -- you get normal Mercury payphone rates. Looks like it's all starting over here now. Nigel Roberts; Orichalk Ltd (on contract to DEC) Tel: +44 206 396610 & +44 860 578600 Fax: +44 206 393148 ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: File Format for AT&T VoicePower Board or VSF Products? Date: 29 Aug 90 22:40:19 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hello there, I'm doing some work with the AT&T VoicePower board and I need to know where I could find the format used for voice files in this system. I believe this format is also an AT&T standard for voice store and forward (VSF) products. I think the name of this "standard" is the "AT&T Sub-band Coding Standard". In particular, I need to know just what the headers are for indicating speech coding format as well as silence duration. Any pointers will be greatly appreciated. Please respond by email. Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez SrMTS GTE Laboratories, Inc. + Tel: (617) 466-2584 MS-46 + email: jdiaz@gte.com 40 Sylvan Rd. Waltham, MA 02254 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 9:28:00 PDT From: "Richard B. August" Subject: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls Is there information available in the Archives or other repository which mentions a movement of cellular telephone users to lobby the PUC regarding the charging for "AIR TIME" in cellular systems? If not, we should start one. Thanks in advance. Richard B. August august@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov [Moderator's Note: There is no such file in the archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Explain This Conversation Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 17:18:22 GMT I tried to place a long distance call the other day from a bedside phone in a hospital room the other day. I was in 212 and was trying to call 512 (both served by NYTel, so I'm not sure if "long distance" is the appropriate term"). I wanted to put it on my AT&T calling card, so I tried 9-10288-0-516-xxx-xxxx. This got me 2 rings, then a recording advising me that it was not "necessary" to dial an long-distance access code for this call. What did that mean? Did it mean that NYTel would handle it as a local call themselves, or was it an attempt to "encourage" me to use whatever the default carrier was? Just dialing 9-1-516-xxx-xxxx got me a "boinggg" but not a "Boinggg twinkly-noise/AT&T", so I have idea who the carrier was. So, I dialed 9-0 and told the operator that I wanted to place an AT&T calling card call. One or two rings later, another operator gets on the line and the first operator says something like "I have a customer requesting AT&T long distance", and then gets off the circuit. The AT&T operator takes the number I'm calling and my calling card number, and connects me. Why the little inter-operator conversation? Did it really mean, "Operator, this here caller tried his best to dial the call direct but our phone system wouldn't let him, so he shouldn't be charged operator assisted rates"? And who was the first operator? Some AOS? 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #606 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02953; 30 Aug 90 23:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07282; 30 Aug 90 21:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15852; 30 Aug 90 20:23 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:55:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Symposium Notes BCC: Message-ID: <9008301955.ab10029@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:55:00 CDT Telecom Symposium Notes Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Notes From `Telecomunications For Ohio Economic Development' [Jane Fraser] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:00:00 CDT From: Jane M. Fraser Subject: Notes From `Telecommunications For Ohio Economic Development' On August 9, CAST (The Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications) held its fifth one-day symposium, in Columbus, Ohio, titled ``Telecommunications for Ohio Economic Development: A Computer Network for Small Businesses?" The symposium centered around a proposal, presented by myself (Jane Fraser) and Alex Cruz, for a state-wide computer network to link small businesses to each other, to state agencies, and to worldwide networks. The argument we presented was that better access to information for such businesses, better communication among such businesses, and better communication with the world would benefit Ohio through economic development. The following posting reports on the symposium. At the end of this posting is information on how to order copies of papers prsented at the symposium ($5 for the package), audio tapes of most of the symposium ($5), and an email version of the main paper (free). After I presented the basic proposal and its justification, Al Albarran presented the results of a survey of small businesses in Ohio done this summer (with the support of LiTel Telecommunications Corporation). That survey found that 73.7% of businesses surveyed have personal computers and 65.0% have a modem, but only 13.1% use them for some form of communication. However, 59.9% said they would try a network like the one proposed. Alex Cruz, on whose Master's thesis the proposal was based, demonstrated features of 5 existing computer systems (Usenet, ONet, Cleveland FreeNet, Prodigy, and the Big Sky Telegraph). While many of these have many of the features we proposed, none has all nor, as far as we know, is any used by small businesses in the way we proposed. To provide the audience with a larger perspective, Edwin B. Parker presented an excellent mini-course in telecommunications and economic development. Ed is an independent consultant and former Chairman, President, and CEO of Equatorial Communications. Prior to joining Equatorial fulltime in 1979, he was a Professor of Communication at Stanford University. He is a noted expert on telecommunications and economic development. I found this talk to be a wonderful education, particularly in rural development, as well as a powerful view, from a person with a great deal of perspective on what might happen in the future. For example, Ed suggested there are three stages in the view of economic developers regarding how to accelerate economic development in rural areas. The first is smokestack chasing, the second involves trying to lure `back offices' (to handle, for example, bank transactions), but the third is to focus on small businesses. While Ed's research and talk focused on rural development, he applied the ideas to small business development, noting that many of the problems and issues are the same. The afternoon sessions began with a presentation by Dave Spooner, senior economic development office for the Manchester (England) City Council. Dave described the efforts they are making to improve the use of telematics (the convergence of telecommunication and informatics) in Manchester, in particular by small businesses and voluntary organizations. Manchester will soon have a node in the worldwide Geonet system, enabling small businesses and voluntary organizations in Manchester to access data, to communicate with each other, and to communicate with similar groups in other cities around the world. They are also providing, through the local polytechnic, education to small businesses and voluntary organization on how such a communication network can be used. A panel of three speakers discussed the use of computers in economic development in three states. Kay Lutz-Ritzheimer described the Montana Entrepreneurship Center, which makes the expertise of three Montana universities available to entrepreneurs. Tony Roso described a system used to link economic developers in Colorado. Both cited the usefulness of such systems in states with wide open spaces. In both cases, the networks are available currently only to people involved in economic development, but both states plan to expand to bring businesses on-line. John Niles (from Washington state) presented a more skeptical view asking whether it was really necessary to provide yet another information source for businesses, but agreeing that dialog among the businesses can be a strong source of emotional support and good advice. In the final session, four speakers from inside Ohio described various computer activities. Dick Decker describe ONet, which links Ohio colleges and universities. Tom Grunder described the Cleveland FreeNet and the National Public Telecomputing Network. Keith Ewald and Tim Steiner described databases and computer projects in the State of Ohio government. I thought Keith had some very strong arguments against direct state involvement in a system such as we proposed. For example, he pointed out that data (and perhaps `private' electronic mail) stored on a state computer is subject to sunshine laws. The FreeNet concept of free telecomputing available to all on the model of the public library is a powerful concept. Tom's presentation raised a great deal of discussion in the audience and among the other presenters. Many of the latter felt that free networks are inherently self-limiting since they must continually seek new funds to maintain their current status, much less grow. Tom would argue, I think, that computer networks with a large user base can easily generate funds since there are many agencies that want to be able to reach members of the public with information, for example, on AIDS prevention. The discussion continued that evening in small groups and even into the breakfast the next day since many speakers stayed in Columbus. We at CAST have found that we can play a valuable role in putting people in touch with each other and I know that many contacts made at the symposium will lead to further discussions. Overall, I found that the comments I got in response to our proposal were both more positive and more negative than I anticipated. Many negative comments concerned how users would actually use the system; what kind of exchange of information and communication would occur and how would that help a small business? I believe the symposium failed to convey adequately the uses to which we anticipate such a system could be put; I'll make some comments on that here. We believe the communication among companies and with companies elsewhere is much more important than their access to databases. If this were not the case, there would be little point in our proposal; John Niles is correct in that there are many sources that enable companies to access databases. Although there are many State of Ohio sources of information that are not available on-line currently, they could be made available through current information sources. Another point we may not have made clear is that one way a network of small businesses could be implemented is by subsidizing their use of appropriate existing networks. It may be that the most important need is to educate potential users about what already exists. In the paper by Alex and I, we listed the following examples of possible uses, many of which focus on communication, not on access to information: ``OTTO (the Ohio Technology Transfer Organization, an organization in the Ohio Department of Development) might maintain a file giving answers to common questions. For example, they are often asked questions about how to dispose of toxic waste. OTTO agents could also be available through electronic mail and through bulletin boards to answer specific questions. Existing computer connections used by agents of Agricultural Extension could be integrated into this system, improving access to information for the agricultural community. ``Sales people might keep in touch with their home office by using a laptop and a hotel phone to check their mail each evening and to enter new orders. A company might use electronic mail to communicate with its customers. For example, it might send price updates by the network. ``Consultants willing to consult for a fee on specific topics could advertise their availability through the network; inversely, a company needing such services could advertise its need and allow consultants to respond. A company wishing to dispose of used equipment could advertise its availability; inversely, a company seeking equipment (used or new) might advertise its need. ``Engineering diagrams, such as circuit boards, could be sent by the customer to the manufacturer. Users of computer systems could post questions and answers on bulletin boards on specific systems. Chambers of Commerce in various parts of the state might post notices of events and might maintain bulletin boards to answer questions. ``In general, the network could be used by companies to: improve access to customers and suppliers, improve access to up-to-date information, speed communication and thus decision making, reduce distribution costs by increasing efficiency, reduce need for inventory in many locations, reduce need for messengers, reduce response time when repairs are needed, and improve scheduling of time of personnel and machinery. Also, it is very likely that new, unanticipated uses will arise if the network is established.'' The more positive responses involve contacts from people who want to work with CAST to make at least parts of the proposal happen. After organizing the symposium, I made contact with June Holley and Roger Wilkens of the Worker Owned Network in Athens, Ohio. With funding from the Ohio Department of Development and other sources, they are seeking to establish flexible manufacturing networks, that is, networks of companies that cooperate; these networks are not necessarily computer based. Such networks have had great success in Italy and in Sweden and the DoD is seeking to establish similar structures in Ohio. June and Roger attended the symposium and were able to stay to talk further with many of the presenters. Plans are still developing, but it seems very probable that the Worker Owned Network, the Manchester program, and CAST will cooperate in linking Athens with Manchester. I am also talking with the Ohio Business Retention and Expansion Program (part of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Services) about possibilities for a demonstration project. Other contacts are emerging and I would be happy to discuss possibilities with people, whether they attended the symposium or not. For those who could not attend, or who did attend but would like a better record of the day, two packages of material are available at a price set to cover our costs; each package costs $5. The first package contains copies of background papers; the second package contains four audio tapes, covering all presentations beginning with Dr. Parker's. The background papers in the first package include: the Symposium program, the Biographies of Symposium Speakers, A proposal for a state-funded computer network for small and medium sized companies in Ohio (Jane M. Fraser and Alex Cruz), The use of computers and telecommunication networks by small and medium size businesses in the state of Ohio: Results of an exploratory study (Alan B. Albarran), Telecommunication and economic development (copies of the overheads used by Edwin Parker), The Manchester Host (Dave Spooner), The Montana Entrepreneurship Center, Telematics: A force for development (John S. Niles), Stimulating regional economic development in Colorado (Anthony Roso, Jr.), Networking Ohio colleges in support of statewide economic and human resource development stategies (Richard C. Decker), Illusions associated with electronic technology for data integration and sharing (Keith Ewald and Dixie Sommers), Community computing and the National Public Telecomputing Network (T.M. Grundner), and Background and supplemental reading (Mary Leugers). For those who attended the symposium, the papers by Spooner, Roso, and Ewald and Sommers were not handed out there. The paper by Spooner corresponds to his talk; the papers by Roso and Ewald and Sommers do not correspond exactly to the presentations made by those speakers, but provide some background. Unfortunately, most of these papers are not available in electronic form. However, the Fraser and Cruz paper (`A proposal ...') is available in electronic form and we will email copies of that upon request. For more information or to order either package, contact me: Jane M. Fraser Associate Director, CAST The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, 43210 614-292-4129 jane@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Checks for either or both packages should be made out to CAST/OSU. Our next symposium will be in November and will be on the role of commercialism in the classroom, using the example of TV, such as Whittle Channel One, for broadcasting to schools. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Symposium Notes ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03164; 30 Aug 90 23:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07282; 30 Aug 90 21:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15852; 30 Aug 90 20:22 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:28:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: E-Series Recommendations BCC: Message-ID: <9008301928.ab14913@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:27:00 CDT E-Series Recommendations Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson E-Series Recommendations Excerpts [Joel M. Snyder] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 1990 01:13:43 MST From: Subject: E Series Recommendations Excerpts - for Edification and Emusement Here are Interesting Facts and Figures entered from the CCITT Recommendations of 1988. There are errata for these Recommendations, but I have not applied them to these! Also, my typing skills are not perfect. Note: these are all excerpts, and quotes. I have left out substantial text, and am including only some of the more interesting tidbits. If you are really interested, make sure you get the entire text! Things in [] are my comments. ------------------------ From Recommendation E.180, Technical Characteristics of Tones for the Telephone Service [I left out all the stuff about dB levels of tones, mostly because it was accompanied by a lot of graphs] Dial Tone: It is recommended that dial tone be either a single frequency tone in the range 400 to 450 Hz, or a combined tone composed of up to three frequencies, with at least one frequency in each of the ranges 340-425 Hz and 400-450 Hz. The difference between any two frequencies should be at least 25 Hz. When adopting a new single frequency dial tone, Administrations are recommended to use 425 Hz. Ringing Tone: Ringing tone is a slow period tone, in which the tone period is shorter than the silent period. The recommended limits for the tone period (including tolerances) are from 0.67 to 1.5 seconds. The recommended limits for the silent period separating two tone periods are 3 to 5 seconds. The first tone period should start as soon as possible after the called subscriber's line has been found. The ringing tone cadence should be similar to the cadence used for applying ringing current to the called subscriber's telephone set, but these two cadences need not be synchronized. [It goes on to discuss frequencies for ringing tone] Busy Tone and Congestion Tone: The subscriber busy tone and the equipment or circuit group congestion tone are quick period tones in which the tone period is theoretically equal to the silent period. The total duration of a complete cycle (tone period E + silent period S) should be between 300 and 1100 milliseconds. The ration E/S of the tone period to the silent period should be between .67 and 1.5. The busy tone and the congestion tone can be identical, but a distinction is desirable. Special Information Tone: [This is that tri-tone we've been talking about lately.] The special information tone has a tone period that consists of three successive tone signals, each lasting for 330 +- 70 milliseconds. Between these tone signals may be a gap of up to 30 milliseconds. The frequencies used for the three tone signals are 950 Hz; 1400 Hz; 1800 Hz (all +-50 Hz) sent in that order. After the special information tone is a 1000 millisecond (+-250 ms) silent period. [ Other tones are described: the warning tone to indicate that a conversation is being recorded, the payphone recognition tone, the call waiting tone (400 to 450 Hz for 300 to 500 ms, followed by 8 to 10 sec silence OR 400 to 450 Hz on for 100 to 200 ms, silent for 100 to 200 ms, and on for 100 to 200 ms, followed by 8 to 10 sec silence); and caller waiting tone (you didn't know we had one of those, did you? It's supposed to be similar to ringing, so if you don't know what it is, it sounds like ringing)] ------------- Supplement 2 to Fascicle II.2 (E-series Recommendations) This is a really interesting one. It gives the frequencies and cadences for dial tones, ringing tones, busy tones, etc. around the world. Example: In Finland, the dial tone is a 425 Hz tone generated as three pulses of .2 sec length separated by two pulses of .3 sec length, followed by .8 second silence. In El Salvador, the busy tone is 1/3 second tones of 425 Hz separated by 1/3 seconds of silence. In the US, the "special information tone" is three 1/3 second pulses without pause at 950, 1400, and 1800 Hz. God only knows how much of this is accurate, of course. I'm sure our Finnish readers will be able to comment on the first. ------------------- Recommendation E.123 Notation for National and International Telephone Numbers 1.1 The international number should be printed below the national number, with corresponding digits lined up one under the other to facilitate understanding of the composition of the international number as showd in the examples in 1.3 and 1.4 below. 1.2 The words "National" and "International" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the left of the national and international numbers, and these should be separated by a horizontal line. 1.3 Either the symbol for the telephone given in Rec. E.121 or the word "Telephone" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the left of (or above) the national and international numbers (to avoid confusion with other letterhead numbers.) The + (plus) signifies the international prefix. Example: National (0607) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- International +22 607 123 4567 1.4 Because the countries of World Numbering >one 1 (North America) have the country code 1, the same number as is used for the trunk prefix, and because dialing between these countries is the same as long-distance dialing within them, subscriber difficulties are avoided by using an alternative notation that has been found superior for use within those countries and equally good for subscribers in other countries dialing to Zone 1. Example: Within N. Amer. zone (302) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- International +1 302 123 4567 1.5 If it is desirable to write only the international number, it should be written in the form: Telephone International +22 607 123 4567 1.6 [abbreviated: Extensions use the word "ext.", like this:] National (0607) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- ext. 876 International +22 607 123 4567 2. Classes of symbols [not too exciting, but there is one interesting part:] 4.4 Multiple numbers without automatic search For a subscriber with multiple numbers who does not have automatic search, the symbol / (oblique stroke, solidus, or slant) may be used to separate the alternative numbers. Example A: (0607) 123 4567 / 123 7272 / 627 1876 It is especially important that there be a space on either side of the symbol /. When it is desired to abbreviate the alternative numbers, and they are consecutive, only the last digit should be shown for alternative numbers: Example B: (0607) 123 4567/8/9 It is especially important that there be no space on either side of the symbol /. 4.6 Symbol to indicate the existence of an additional dial tone. [Essentially: use a tilde (~), or as close as you can get to the graphical representation of a full cycle of the sine wave. Don't use a hyphen, and put spaces around it so it won't be confused for a hyphen. 7. Facsimile number notation The printed format for facsimile numbers should follow the conventions set forth for voice telephone numbers except that facsimile numbers should be clearly labeled with the upper case letters FAX printed to the left of the numbers as illustrated here: National (0607) 123 4567 FAX -------------------------------------- International +22 607 123 4567 -------------------------- E.163 and E.164 should be familiar to any of you ISDN hackers -- they're the numbering plan for the international telephone service, which includes all of the Country Codes. Some of these have appeared before in this forum. I won't retype them. --------------------------- E.161 Arrangement of Figures, Letters, and Symbols on telephones and other devices that can be used for gaining access to a telephone network: 1. Use of figures and letters in telephone numbers [Don't use figures. Use numbers] 2. Rotary dials. [There's a picture there, which looks like our standard rotary dial, sort of. The holes are numbered from 1 to 0, with the letters as follows: 1 (none) 2 ABC 3 DEF 4 GHI 5 JKL 6 MN 7 PRS 8 TUV 9 WXY 0 OQ ] 3. Pushbuttons or keys 3.1 10 buttons [More figures. Essentially says: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Also, if you HAVE to, you can do: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 with a note: "User dialing performance on these special arrays is slightly inferior to that on the standard array given above."] The letters are the same as on rotary dials; note the letter O is on the number 0, and not on the number 6. 3.2 12 buttons [Add * and # in the usual places. There's this big picture of the *, and it will be known as the "star." Also, there's two big pictures of the #, which I'll try to reproduce here: X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X The length of the long bar is b, and the length of the stub after the cross (two Xs in my picture) is called a. The angle is called alpha. In Europe, alpha = 90 degrees with a/b = 0.08 In North America, alpha = 80 degrees with a/b close to the upper limit of 0.18 This symbol will be known as the square. [There's more, noting that you shouldn't color the pushbuttons different colors, and you should have a register recall pushbutton instead of using switchhook flash.] ------------------- Recommendation E.114 Supply of Lists of Subscribers 1. Each Administration shall supply by mutual agreement and free of charge to the Administrations with which a telephone service exists a sufficient number of copies of its lists of subscribers for official use. 2. A subscriber wishing to obtain a telephone directory of another country must apply to his own Administration. If an application for one of its telephone directories is received directly by an Administration by a subscriber in a foreign country, the receiving Administration shall inform the subscriber that such requests should be addressed to his own Administration. 3. An Administration which has supplied telephone directories of its own country to another Administration for distribution to subscribers shall indicate the sale price of the directories plus any postal charges (in principle expressed in gold francs) for the use of the receiving Administration. 4. Accounting concerning the supply of such directories for subscribers' use shall be conducted according to the usual procedure followed between Administrations (see Recommendation D.170) unless Administrations, by mutual agreement, elect to forego such accounting. [typed in its entirety] -------------- Recommendation T.20, Standardized Test Chart for Facsimile Transmissions You probably have heard of this test chart, since that's what your FAX manufacturer used to propose the incredibly high rate of transmission you never see on your own equipment. The funny part of this one is that the test chart has some half tones, some lines, and other stuff, but the center is a picture of a small child: "Argentine Boy." One wonders how long they had to argue over the picture... T.21 is a second test chart, which has texts in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Russion. ------------------------- Recommendation E.117 Provisions concerning the device substituting a subscriber in his absence 1. Precautions will have to be taken by the Administrations to warn callers of the presence on the called subscriber's line of a device substituting him in his absence: a. Devices of this type should be indicated in the telephone directories by means of a special sign [...] [Here, I'll try to describe the sign. It looks very much like a backwards Q: There is a large circle, larger than any other character in the type face, with a small stroke through it, going South-West. The stroke doesn't go quite to the center, and extends out about as far as it extends in. I bet the angle is exactly 45 degrees (or 225, if you want to think of it that way).] b. Administrations should invite the owners or renters of such equipment to mention the fact on their letterheads by means of a printed indication. 2. To facilitate the disposal of international traffic on a device of this type, the Administrations should, when consenting to this equipment, insist that it complies with the essential conditions set out in the following Annex. (end of Recommendation, beginning of Annex A to Recommendation E.117 A.1 Operating Conditions A.1.1 Delay in Answering The ringing current from the telephone exchange should be premitted to operate the telephone bell for at least three seconds but not for more than ten seconds before the call is answered by the apparatus. This will enable the call to be answered in the normal way in those countries which wish to provide for such a facility. The timing of this interval (three to ten seconds) should be independent of the periodicity or the duration of the ringing current. A.1.2 Normal conditions for metering and supervision In answering a call the apparatus should loop the subscriber's line and should give the normal conditions for control of metering and for supervision as with a normal subscriber's installation. The disconnection of the apparatus should break the loop on the subscriber's line. A.1.3 Announcement of the presence of the apparatus A.1.3.1 The presence of the apparatus should be indicated to the calling party by means of a verbal announcement following, in principle, immediately on the closing of the loop on the subscriber's line. A.1.3.2 This verbal announcement should include, in particular, the following: - first, that it is a reconding apparatus; - the subscriber's name or business style; - the subscriber's number and particulars of the locality (e.g., Geneva, St. Moritz, etc.) - clear instructions as to the functioning of the apparatus (whether a message may be recorded, and if so, the moment when the message may be recorded and the maximum duration of the recording). A.2 Signalling conditions A.2.1 Avoidance of interference from signalling frequencies The correct functioning of the apparatus should not depend upon (nor be affected to any extent by) the sending or receiving of signalling frequencies used in the telephone system or specially generated in the apparatus. A.2.2. Avoidance of interference with national signalling systems by the tones transmitted by the apparatus To avoid interference with the national signalling system of a country by the tones transmitted by the apparatus over the network of that country, it is recommended that: - the transmission of tones should be in short pulses and not a continuous transmission; - the tones should not be composed of a single frequency, but should be a mixture of at least two frequencies, so that the guard circuit of the signal receiver of the corresponding country, where there would be a risk of interference, may operate. For this purpose, the choice of the following frequency-combinations should be avoided: 2040 and 2400 Hz 600 and 750 Hz 1200 and 1600 Hz 500 and 20 Hz 1000 and 20 Hz A.3 Transmission Conditions Any recording apparatus which takes the place of the called subscriber should give a level and quality of speech comparable to that given when the station is used by a person. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: E-Series Recommendations ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04397; 31 Aug 90 0:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02297; 30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad07282; 30 Aug 90 21:30 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:42:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Dial Tone Monopoly BCC: Message-ID: <9008302042.ab17294@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:30:00 CDT Special: Dial Tone Monopoly Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The End of the Dial Tone Monopoly [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:20:00 CDT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: The End of the Dial Tone Monopoly Several weeks ago, one of our British colleagues here placed a good description of the current status of telephone services deregulation in the UK, and asked for a response that indicated the usual question of, "How is it over there?" The way here in the US is definitely different, but no one seemed to respond. It just might be that many US Digest readers don't yet understand. What follows is a short piece I recently prepared for an editor, and I hope it answers both kinds of parties: THE END OF THE DIAL TONE MONOPOLY By: Donald E. Kimberlin, Principal Consultant Telecommunications Network Architects Safety Harbor, FL August 12, 1990 While many Americans have been trained to believe that "dial tone" is the sacrosanct property of telephone companies, evidence is coming clear to show that "dial tone" is not a "natural monopoly." Saying this is certain to raise many hackles, but it is time we faced up to it: The "natural monopoly" view of providing Public Switched Telephone Network services on a local basis was valid in its 1913 context, when the Bell interests struck a deal to end their pillage of Indpendent telephone companies in the U.S. Technology and removal of the art of running a telephone network from the status of "trade secret" has changed all that. It's occurred so rapidly and in so many ways that few know of all the prongs now stuck into what was once a nicely-closed pie. Even though it was published, few took note that in 1984, the departing Chairman of the FCC said in a speech that since the demonopolization of long distance service had been accomplished, the time had come to work on breaking up the local telephone monopoly. Nobody reported that speech, except the general press the following day. It was obvious the Chairman had touched on a taboo of the telephone business. Despite the fact that the FCC's Open Network Architecture mandate has gone on and continues to move, nobody wants to face up to what it really means: Detaching the dial tone of the local network from the wires of the local telephone company, separating the two such that the dial tone is put on somebody else's transmission channel, or connecting the local telephone company's wire to somebody else's dial tone. That's not any technological breakthrough. It's been possible for decades. The single thing that made the dial tone and transmission channel inseparable was the lack of "somebody else" being around to do it with. Well, that's all changed, in more ways than one might think. Let's run through a few of the possibilities that really could happen today ... but for the desire of "somebody else" to take up the cudgel and push the matter into full visibility. There are some historical backgrounds to the alternatives that may be worth knowing about; these often have roots in history of things the monopoly-era telephone business didn't care too much about. They are generally exemplified in reasons behind the FCC's 1947 and 1948 decisions that opened radio-paging and use of microwave radio to non-Telcos. (That's right, we're here talking of temblors some four decades prior to the eruption of nearly unbridled competition in "the phone business.") For the most part, the Bell interests had so narrowly focused their business that even though they claimed anything moving information was their birthright, there were numerous items they handled in only the most marginal of ways. Among these was telephone service to ships in coastal waters, several earlier versions of mobile telephone service, various forms of telegraphy, burglar alarm services and others. For the most part, other firms engaged these markets, particularly in the 65% of the land area of the U.S. covered by non-Bell "Independent" telephone companies, which focused totally on telephone business. In that large territory, almost all non-telephone aspects of telecommunications were provided by private, often local business. These almost all used some form of radio in their business and became known as Radio Common Carriers (RCC's). We can thus see the roots of the FCC policy of two competing cellular companies in every market reaching back into these RCCs. In fact, McCaw Cellular, one of the larger "non-wireline" cellular operators, was a long-standing RCC in the pre-divestiture era. In that era of the "natural monopoly," there was more "patching" and "hauling" of dial tone on RCC facilities than ever made official print. Where it was of note, the Telcos treated it as "private," not as a connection of their PSTN to another common carrier. The point was that the only breach in the wall was the connection of "foreign apparatus" at the extremity of the local network; the bond between dial tone and local telco wire remained intact. The traffic truth was that telcos accounted for less than half of the stations and traffic with boats and aircraft, and as the famous Huber report showed, less than a third of paging and mobile radio operations. Much of that had already extended the "dial tone" into non-Telco hands. That situation was stable for several decades, but it ultimately did wind up today with dial tone coming from non-wireline cellular carriers and even dial marine VHF shore stations that are now all private. The "hauling" of dial tone we can readily see today as microwave bypass, but it has also gone a giant step beyond. In a case that no Telco-employed "consultant" will tell about (it's doubtful they have been "trained" on it), Arco Oil Company put in its own private microwave from downtown Dallas, Texas to its corporate headquarters in suburban Richardson, about ten miles away. Arco's reason: Dissatisfaction with the performance levels of GTE of Texas, the "natural monopoly" dial tone supplier for Richardson. The microwave hauled Southwestern Bell dial tone from downtown Dallas to Richardson. To reach Arco, all one did was dial a Dallas number. The dial tone on Arco's PBX was SW Bell, not GTE. When Arco's "illegal action" was discovered, GTE of course wanted its brother in the cloth, Southwestern Bell to disconnect the dial tone. Both telcos got the Texas utility regulators to order them to disconnect, but Arco is no stranger to court action. Arco immediately went to the FCC, arguing that the dial tone was only incidental to connections containing a high proportion of interstate traffic, which was beyond the purview of the Texas State regulators. The result: The FCC ordered Southwestern Bell to maintain dial tone supply to Arco's microwave channels to Richardson, to provide interstate calling service. GTE and Southwestern Bell appealed, and after several years in the Federal Appeals courts, GTE and SW Bell lost again in early 1990, with but one step left: The U.S. Supreme Court. It is unlikely that GTE or SW Bell want to risk a Supreme Court decision after the several slaps they have suffered on their way to the Supreme Court; they doubtful would want to be responsible for it becoming wide public knowledge that the "natural monopoly" for a dial tone is really no longer supported by the US government and its courts. An outfall of this is that if you have the means and desire, you can really carry in a dial tone from wherever you want. That opens a wealth of possibilities. It means that anyone who has the means to provide transmission to your premises can import a dial tone from whatever local telco network they want. The issue to settle is if they can SELL it to you. This portends a boon to independent Telcos located in the hinterlands who want to engage in selling their dial tone to people a thousand miles away. (And if you REALLY understand the true love/hate relation between Bell and Independent Telcos in the US, you'll see that's not a flight of fancy!) Who would sell this dial tone? The first moves have already been made in England, where instead of simply demonopolizing long distance, the government authorized a "duopoly," permitting England's globe-spanning Cable & Wireless to establish Mercury Communications to provide local dial tone as well. Mercury has done so in more than one way. In the major cities, Mercury immediately pulled fiber into abandoned steam pipes and used Northern Telecom's telephone network architecture and equipment to pop electronic exchanges in service with a speed most telephone people would not understand. The Mercury network was operational almost overnight, in typical telephone capital plan terms. And, Mercury offered services that British Telecom hadn't thought of, like Centrex, intrinsically available in the NT equipment, but not in BT-controlled designs, even the fabled System X. In less-dense areas, Mercury used existing technology to use vacant capacity in cable TV systems to reach telephone subscribers. The latter method has been slow to expand, but not for technical limits as much as economic disagreement with the cable operators. The implication for the U.S. is obvious: Your local cable TV company has the transmission plant in place to become the "other phone company in town." The technology to get telephone channels on the present coaxial cble plant exists; there is no need for a "fiber rebuild" to handle the need. Existing unused capacity in many US cable TV systems offers in the order ot 50,000 lines of capacity in every cable passing every building. The "fiber" story is chanted by Telcos, because they need fiber to get their capacity up to be able to compete in wideband data and television carriage. Adding fiber to the cable TV systems is just a convenience and modernization to their plant. In fact, in many disparate areas of the nation, cable TV companies have quietly sold telephone and data channel capacity for years, some even interconnected between cable companies for distances in excess of 100 miles, and channels up to T-1 digital rate. Again, these are not applications stories your Telco-paid "consultant" is likely to tell you about, but they are not secret nor are they illegal. Carrying a dial tone down them is no great technology problem at all. Another front of the attack on the "dial tone monopoly" exists in the buzzword "co-location" now being raised more loudly by another new form of competition to the local Telcos, the Alternative Access Carriers. The AACs are typically local fiber optic network providers such as the Metropolitan Fiber Systems now building in more than 20 cities around the nation, with nearly parallel competition from Teleport Communications in most of the same cities, while there are a number of unpublicized regional local fiber companies, like Florida's Intermedia Communications. Williams Telecommunications Group headquartered in Tulsa, OK seems to be making moves to acquire some of these firms and as well build some plant of its own in cities. Another aspect of this incursion into the "local monopoly" may come from MCI, through its acquisition last year of the local facilities of Western Union Telegraph natiowide. My own work led to discovering miles of brand new Western Union conduit in the streets of Los Angeles late last year prior to the MCI purchase, while another recent revelation was discovery of *wooden* WUTCo conduits in Oklahoma City recently. All this is now MCI property, and its purpose is obvious; MCI's intent to use it is not yet so obvious. The AAC segment is following MFS's lead to get local Telcos ordered to permit interconnection of their channels to user premises to Telco dial tone. But, they have no need to wait for that. They can just as well import dial tone from wherever they want, for VSATs already make that practical. In fact, if the U.S. can get cheap computer data entry performed on Caribbean islands by VSAT link, what is there to prevent U.S. AACs from importing cheap dial tone via VSAT from them as well? Probably nothing, if anyone really looks into the possibility. And, most recent, we have alternative space-based potentials. Motorola's IRIDIUM is but one, and has recently been well-publicized and described. Less public is NASA's Personal Access Satellite System (PASS), which proposes to use techniques rather well-developed by the military for acquiring and tracking on geosynchronous satellites. PASS focuses on developing use of the 35 gigahertz portion of the spectrum where enormous dish gains are possible with 0.3 meter (12 inch!) dishes and tiny transportable earth stations, offering megabit-sized data streams to even the remotest of locations. Both IRIDIUM and PASS propose use of satellite "crosslinks," the satellite term for having the switching network in the sky with direct trunklines between satellites. So, you could readily be in Detroit but getting your dial tone from Auckland. In fact, what's to say there can't be a "virtual Centrex" located in satellites, so the "global corporation" can have a "global Centrex?" In this context of our ability to get a dial tone from anywhere at a cheap price, does it really seem so strange that we do it? The technology for much of it is already in hand; some of it has really already been used, and all of it is so close to accomplishment that we will be doing it soon. The largest obstacle is not in technology at all; it is in people's emotions and in vested economic interests of an industry that faces threats many of its most endangered species participants cannot even understand: America's local "natural monopoly" telephone companies. ---------------- (Historical afternote: One way to understand the way in which the "natural dial tone monopoly" has been fabricated and ingrained into minds in the U.S. is to read a book on the non-Bell "independent" telephone industry. This history has been documented several times this century, and the latest is titled, "The Spirit of Independent Telephony," by Charles A. Pleasance, 1989, ISBN 0-9622202-0-7. It indexes 37 U.S. cities that once had independent telcos competing with Bell, and I know of others that had multiple independent Telcos, some until after WW II. This history will surprise some when they learn that the Independent telcos even tried to form a non-Bell long distance network; one that Bell interests finally quashed with the formation of AT&T's Long Lines "department," really a shadow company that built the long-distance links and pooled the money collected for long distance calls. The point here is that the "natural monopoly" concept for dial tone is a fabrication that may have made sense in 1913, was driven home by vested interests, and today is obviously a dinosaur running out of food.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Dial Tone Monopoly ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05472; 31 Aug 90 1:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26279; 30 Aug 90 23:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02297; 30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:33:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Mailing Error: Duplicate Copies of Special BCC: Message-ID: <9008302133.ab26857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> In error, you may have received TWO copies of the special issue on local dial tone monopolies which was issued Thursday evening. One copy (correct) would have been entitled "Dial Tone Monopoly" One copy (incorrect) would have been entitled "Issue 606". Please disgard the duplicate and incorrectly titled copy. Accidents will happen, you know! Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05778; 31 Aug 90 1:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26279; 30 Aug 90 23:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af02297; 30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:44:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #607 BCC: Message-ID: <9008302144.ab07976@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:43:32 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 607 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Steven King] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Darren Griffiths] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeff A. Duffel] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Dave Levenson] Re: Intercept Recordings [David Tamkin] Re: Intercept Recordings [Peter Clitherow] Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Linc Madison] Re: Octothorpes [John Slater] Re: Octothorpes [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [D. Bernstein] Message Overload! Please Hold Off [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven King Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 29 Aug 90 21:53:58 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) >writes: >>Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >>bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >>Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >>The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >>those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. >I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent >user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, >they will bill you through your local phone company. I called Sprint today to discontinue service. I'm moving and taking neither my local nor my long distance service with me. When the customer rep lady asked me if I'd been displeased with my service, I answered that it was fine except I preferred to be billed through my local telco rather than directly by Sprint. Her reply is that that was "being worked on" but that she couldn't say how long it would take. For the record, I generally make only one or two long distance phone calls per month. I've had Sprint for nearly a year and they've always billed me direct. The local telco is Illinois Bell. Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ From: Darren Griffiths Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 30 Aug 90 02:13:40 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 598, Message 8 of 12 >Darren Griffiths writes: >> One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going >> to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell >> does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software >> to distribute a "contract" along with bills. >Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all >of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be >laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state >address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill >envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and >again no mention of Pacific Bell. >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. I don't subscribe to Sprint but I do know that my AT&T bills come along with my local phone bill and, if I've used any other long distance company, they are included in the same envelope. Basically each long distance company has a seperate sheet of paper with the logo printed on the top, however, I'm looking at them as we speak and all the papers are the same and the logo is printed on the page, presumable with the same printer that does the billing info. I send one check to Pacific Bell and it pays my local calls, my long distance (AT&T, Sprint, MCI etc) and my AT&T calling card. Perhaps you have a different type of service that Sprint prefers to bill direct or that Pacific Bell doesn't have the capability to bill for. The Pacific Bell billing software is still somewhat limited. The software that is currently being worked on is supposed to send two different letters to subscribers. I believe people who already have Sprint will get one letter saying that they now have a contract, and people that don't have Sprint will get another letter explaining that Sprint is going to "put it in writing". In addition the letters will be customized with the person's name etc. It's not a terribly difficult program to write, but I can see why Pacific Bell would want to make changes in the billing system slowly, which is natural when using IBM's and COBOL (ick.) Cheers, darren ------------------------------ From: "Jeff A. Duffel" Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 30 Aug 90 08:31:53 GMT Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca. In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all >of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be >laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state >address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill >envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and >again no mention of Pacific Bell. Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access') are billed through Pac*Bell. However, phone card and business customers are billed directly through Sprint. Since 800-877 is FGD, I don't see how they can tell the difference between the calls, whether they are EA or FON card. They billed a bunch of phreaks about two years ago for using the 'Sprint Backdoor' where phreaks would call 800-877 (and some other 800-xxx's) and simply hold down the pound sign and dial their number and they did this thru Pac*Bell from what I understand. This was when they were first installing the poundable hangup feature which was obviously buggy. >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up? Not everyone's case is exactly like yours. Jeff Duffel @ SAC-UNIX Sacramento, California Internet: jad@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!jad ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 30 Aug 90 12:12:26 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA If US Sprint is not your default carrier, you may still use them by prefixing your called number with 10333, if your telco provides equal access. Calls dialed this way generally get billed by your local telco. If you make US Sprint your default inter-lata carrier, they bill you directly for calls placed from your pre-subscribed number(s) and from your FON card. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 11:05:16 CDT Roy Silvernail wrote in Volume 10, Issue 603: | I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical, | slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached, | xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx." | I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard | this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are | being taken on xxx-xxxx"? "The number has been changed" means that the same customer has new service on a different number (usually at a new location). "Calls are being taken at" (or "on" as you heard it) means that the party called no longer has telephone service (or temporarily doesn't have service, but then the recording would have been "is out of service" rather than "has been disconnected") and that calls are being taken at some other number that was already in service before the number you dialed was disconnected. For example, a person dies and calls are being taken at the number of a surviving relative who already had a phone; a business shuts down and calls are being taken at the number of a former competitor who will now be taking care of the clients (or at the home number of the retired proprietor); a residential customer moves in with someone else and henceforth receives calls on the other person's existing number; or somebody with a twelve-line hunt group cuts it down to eight lines (and the "calls are being taken" recording intercepts calls dialed directly into the four disconnected trunks, referring people to the number at the start of the hunt group). The easiest way to put it is that "has been changed" means that a new telephone number has replaced the old one; "calls are being taken" means that the service was merged into service on another number that was already in use. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings Date: 29 Aug 90 16:10:45 GMT Reply-To: pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory In article <11439@accuvax.nwu.edu> is written: > I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical, > slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached, > xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx." > I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard > this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are > being taken on xxx-xxxx"? When I moved from PA to NJ some years ago, I asked for the new number to be put on the intercept message, and ended up with what you describe above. Perhaps it has to do with being in a different LATA? I can't see any technical reason to require the different message. peter clitherow ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:53:08 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <11418@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ed writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 601, Message 8 of 13 > "Baku Vinaku Beachside" Zowie. Now, the only question is who on earth could possibly be stupid enough to confuse "0-602-NNX-XXXX" with "01-679-NXXXX"... It would've made more sense with calling Annapolis and got Athens, or called Mississippi and got Malaysia, or called Rhode Island and got Romania, or called Tennessee and got Turkey, or called Kansas City and got Calcutta, or called Kansas City and got Osaka, or called Manhattan and got Morocco, or called L.A. and got Algeria, or called the French Quarter and got Latin America, or called New Mexico and got Nicaragua, or called St. Paul and got Sydney, or called Boston and got Brisbane, or called San Diego and got Perth (with an appropriate comment about America's cup), or called Tampa and got Tokyo. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Re: Octothorpes Date: 29 Aug 90 13:18:32 GMT Reply-To: John Slater Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM In article <11381@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roeber@portia.caltech.edu (Roeber, Frederick) writes |> Along with the usual "wham" (or "bang") for `!', "splat" for `*', |> "hat" for `^', and sometimes "hunh" for `?', I've often heard and used |> "thud" for `#'. (thud as in pound, `#' can be a pound sign.) |> "Octothorpe," indeed! '#` is called "hash" in the UK - I was convinced this was US in origin until I started reading TELECOM Digest. Also '!` is "shriek" for some people. When you say '#` is a pound sign, do you mean pounds as in weight (it's never used for that purpose in the UK), or pounds sterling? We have our own symbol for pounds sterling which I can't reproduce here as it's not part of ASCII, so we often use '#` for this purpose, especially in email. John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Octothorpes Date: 30 Aug 90 02:44:40 GMT Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg Organization: I have also heard (and continue to use) "hook" for "?", and "hash" for "#". Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com ------------------------------ From: Dan Bernstein Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 30 Aug 90 05:57:39 GMT Organization: IR In article <11160@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator replies: > [Moderator's Note: Suppose you could set your modem to never time out; > to never drop carrier, meaning you could flash your switchhook to take > a call and your modem would just sit there waiting. If you could do > that, how would the other end know you were on a call-waiting and had > not disconnected abruptly? A timeout is okay. Anyway, I envisioned something like this: Local modem hears call waiting beep. Local modem somehow communicates to remote modem that it's call waiting time. Remote modem acknowledges. Local modem shuts up, dropping carrier. You talk. Eventually the line flashes back to the remote modem. Local modem hears remote's carrier again. Local modem starts generating carrier. Remote hears this and undoes whatever flow control it might have done before. > What you are asking > for is not as easy as merely fixing your own modem to ignore loss of > carrier while you are on another call. Certainly; I don't see this sort of thing working unless both modems are modified to take positive action upon the call waiting beep. Note that once you've gotten over the technical hurdle of recognizing the beep, you can use that for the wait-ack sequence (sort of like a connect). > And if your modem did work that > way, would you want to sit there and try to converse with someone over > the carrier tone (which was still there since you told it not to > leave)? The local carrier would disappear. You wouldn't hear the remote one. > I don't think it would work out at all. On the contrary: all your technical objections are answered by newer phone systems; there's nothing inherently difficult about the idea; and I think most modem users would jump on it in an instant. > And do not think that > the telco is very concerned 'about people getting calls so cheaply', > since most modem owners probably already have a second line to start > with, and a phone bill double what a non-modem user is paying. But a large number don't. Even the ones who do probably wouldn't mind turning one line plus one modem connection into two lines plus one modem connection, for just the cost of call waiting. And as Mark Elkins points out (10/603/10 of 12), the phone company could very well be concerned about this. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:19:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Message Overload! Please Hold Off We are still considerably backed up with messages in the queue, and I would ask again that you hold off sending new articles until at least the first of the week. Likewise, no 're' messages if you see the topic has been pretty well covered. Thanks. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #607 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07060; 31 Aug 90 2:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08258; 31 Aug 90 0:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae26279; 30 Aug 90 23:45 CDT Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:59:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #608 BCC: Message-ID: <9008302259.ab16164@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:58:47 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 608 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Mitch Wagner] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [James Van Houten] Re: CINDI and No-Light Phones [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Explain This Conversation [Steve Schwartz] Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Steve Vance] Re: Intercept Recordings [Ed Greenberg] Re: Real Operators [Peter da Silva] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Peter da Silva] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Mitch Wagner] Several Special Issues in Transit [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: 30 Aug 90 13:28:16 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY In article <11424@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator notes: # I had to practice the very same guerrilla warfare twenty years ago. My # telephone number appeared in error on a list of janitors assigned to # various apartment buildings here belonging to one real estate company. # They flatly ignored my requests to correct their list. I finally # started taking tenant complaint calls, and giving smart aleck answers # back; i.e. tenant says 'no heat in my apartment', my answer would be # to consult my imaginary roster of tenants and reply, "The rent you pay # does not entitle you to have heat in the winter." Tenant says 'my # toilet is out of order', my answer would be to use the one at the gas # station on the corner instead. Finally the realtor got the hint and # corrected the list they gave tenants. PAT] Fabulous! I'll have to remember that one. I was getting dunning calls for some poor guy named Jose Silvera for a while there. When I moved to a new place, they continued -- much to my surprise, until I figured out that someone there had heard the "calls are being taken by... " message and taken down the new number. The chain was broken when I had my number changed to an unlisted one for entirely unrelated reasons. For a while there, I was also getting a series of phone messages for -- apparently -- a nice, conservative Long Island couple in their '60s or '70s. One of these messages was absolutely hilarious. I didn't have the presence of mind to save it, but I can still break friends up laughing with my imitation. At the time, I had one of those cute answering machine messages on my home phone. You also have to imagine the sort-of-whiny voice with the heavy New York accent of a Long Island woman in her 60's or 70's. MY ANSERING MACHINE: "Hi. This is Superman. You know, I woke up this morning and decided all this truth, justice and American way stuff is just a bunch of crap. I'm going to stop wasting my time with it. I'm going out now for a couple of beers. Maybe I'll pick up some whores. I'll be back in a few hours. Leave a message." WOMAN: (Long pause.) "Hello?" (Another long pause.) "Oh, Roz, I don't understand your answering machine *ONE BIT.*" (Aside) "Shh, Henry, I'm *cawling*, I'm *tawking* to her." (To phone.) "Anyway this is *Shirley.* We're at the *airport.*" (Aside.) "Shh, Henry, I'm *cawling,* I'm *tawking* to her." (To phone.) "Come *get* us, we're at the *airpawt....*" Another time Shirley called from Florida to tell Roz the directions that Roz gave her were messed up and her and Henry were completely lost. I miss Shirley and Henry and Roz. Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 18:44:27 EDT Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers I tried to call the Juvenile Court, and the first couple of times I got a circuits-busy. When I finally got through, I was placed in a queue. When the operator finally answered and I asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she said 'wrong number' and immediatly hung up. I have a feeling that they have been getting flooded!! I think I'll try a few person-to-person calls tomorrow. (: Serves 'em right. | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.| ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:05:31 EDT From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU I called and after waiting in queue for about two minutes I asked the Operator for our little old friend and the Operator said Quote "Please stop calling here." It appears that they are getting plenty of calls!! Hope this helps our distant friend!! James Van Houten ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: CINDI and No-Light Phones Date: 30 Aug 90 19:53:00 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11253@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Pete Holsberg writes: > college. However, we do not have phones with "message waiting" lights > on them. Does anyone know of a mod we could make so that we could add Modifying a (2)500 type set to have the traditional M/W lamp is trivial, but a real pain if any quantity needs to be done. The real question is whether your switch is spiking your line with the M/W supply voltage that is high enough to fire the neon M/W lamp. Take a vanilla neon pocket line voltage tester and try it across tip and ring. It will light if your switch has M/W turned on for you. It will also flutter during ringing but presents so low a load that it can't trip ringing. The commercial kits to add the feature are simply some snap in mount lamp cartridge manufacturer's product with fast-ons crimped on the wires, and a pre drilled new face mat. Other models may have a bracket that mounts under the dial's left bracket screw. Typically these kits have lamp leads that are barely long enough and you might just as well buy the lamps bulk, make a jig for drilling face plate holes, and put some students to work. Allen-Tel (available through Graybar, at least) has made such kits (with too short leads...) for years. Somewhere is the zillion ads for new/used/rebuilt/cloned stuff in Telecom Gear ('The Marketplace to Buy & Sell Telecom Gear' 800-322-5156 - the mag the interconnect peddler wishes you never saw...) you will find someone with parts or kits you need. Another popular mount location is to bore a hole in the housing above the face plate but where the lamp cartridge won't hit the hook switch. Even longer lamp leads are needed to make the phone easy to assemble this way. For an outboard lamp, the old large beehive lamp housings (Suttle makes them still, I am sure) can be had with a neon lamp. Recently I have seen a clip/stick on the side of your phone little mini box (like the add on hold buttons or hearing impaired amps) that has a short modular cord to plug into the rear of the phone, and a jack to receive the phone's normal line cord. This is the sort of thing someone like Proctor or Crest is apt to make, but I don't remember where I saw it. You might try 800-HI-HELLO if you don't mind paying HI prices. n.b. - no affiliation with any vendor mentioned [Moderator's Note: That's one thing I have noticed about the Hello Direct people. Their prices are HI. They have excellent quality merchandise but not *that much better* for the prices they get. PAT] ------------------------------ From: schwartz@aiag.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Explain This Conversation Date: 31 Aug 90 02:19:48 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation >I tried to place a long distance call the other day from a >bedside phone in a hospital room the other day. I was in 212 and was >trying to call 512 (both served by NYTel ... 212 (New York City; also 718) and 516 (Long Island) are in the same LATA (as well as part of 914 and a smidgen of 203). Your call was, in fact, local, and was probably cheaper using NYTel than any LD carrier. >the first operator says something like "I have a customer requesting >AT&T long distance", and then gets off the circuit. The AT&T operator >takes the number I'm calling and my calling card number, and connects >me. Why the little inter-operator conversation? Sounds like the NYTel operator was telling the AT&T operator, "This customer insists on using a LD carrier for a local call." Steve ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe Date: 30 Aug 90 03:58:16 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In regards to the capability of calling 800 numbers from countries other than the United States, there was a blurb in last month's Compuserve Magazine (July 90), page 8: ----begin quoted article---- BYPASSING TOLL-FREE TROLLS Toll-free numbers provide a convenient and cost-effective method for businesses to stay in touch with customers. The drawback, however, is they are inaccessible to anyone who happens not to be in the targeted market area*. For those individuals, as well as travelers seeking an alternative to the high international telephone call surcharges imposed by many hotels, Credit Card Calling Services can help. CCCS provides access by bypassing local telephone companies, which typically block toll-free calls as they can collect no revenue on them. For $4.80 plus $1.35 a minute, CCCS connects you with any US telephone number, bypassing local telephone operators. The service is currently available in several countries including the United Kingdom and the United States. For more information, United Kingdom residents can call CCCS toll-free at 0800-891-800. Others may obtain an information packet and a local access number by calling 212/323-8030 or writing: Suite 2411, 67 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. ------end of article----- I put the "*" above next to something that surprised me. I didn't know that the Locals blocked 800 numbers for that reason -- I thought you restricted 800 number access to only be available in areas you wanted to market to, to minimize the number of hours of use and therefore the cost. In fact, I thought that more than one person or company could have the same 800 number, as long as the regions were far apart geographically. But anyway, there is probably some usefulness in some of the above information to someone, I hope. [Moderator's Note: I think CCCS or someone is lying about the blocking of 800 calls by telcos 'as they can collect no revenue on them'. Of course they collect revenue on them! 800 calling is nothing more or less than automatic reverse-charge, or collect calling. And the telco which originates the call *always* gets paid for the call, through intercompany billing and settlements with the telco which actually collects for the call. If you called me collect through the operator, are you saying your local telco would be working for free? Responding to your second statement about duplication in numbers based on distance, this is not correct. 800 numbers, like all telephone numbers, are not duplicated within an 'area code', which in this case is 800. Telcos *do* block 800 calls if the receiver of the call -- the person who is paying for it, remember -- says he won't pay for calls from some particular area of the country; i.e. a subscriber who only accepts intra-state calls, or local area calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 08:42 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings I believe that "Calls are being taken by...." indicates that the new number belongs to somebody other than the old subscriber. ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Real Operators? Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:13:47 GMT In article <11398@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: > Sprint's latest TV spot: "...We have REAL operators..." [Three examples of what seem to me to be very similar service.] > but Sprint had better "shape up" when it comes to operator service. You got the information you wanted each time. The difference seems lost in the noise to me. I've had similar results with Emily Latella. As for collect calls: I don't know about Sprint, but the last time anyone called us collect via AT&T it went like: "Hello, I have a collect call. Is this Stephanie da Silva?" "Yes" *Click* No "will you accept a call from..." or even "will you accept charges...". As it turned out, we didn't want to talk to this person and they were good enough to remove the charges. We didn't get instant credit, either. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers, including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The chain is as strong as its weakest link, etc. The customer knows nothing of the back office ... but he knows plenty about cranky service reps; dirty, stinky payphone booths; and phones which rip off his money. He remembers all the times the operator has sassed him. He could care less -- if he knows anything at all -- about 195 Broadway. That is why operators and service reps should be *highly paid* and *highly trained and skilled*. Its what's up front that counts! PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:22:27 GMT In article <11409@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer writes: > a call on a Sunday [is] someone who probably came in > to the office just to avoid the charge. (Which says something about > what a cheapskate and fool such a person must be, for $0.16.) This is an unfounded assumption. It could just be someone who came to work on a Sunday. And someone who does that probably deserves a few personal calls. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: It may also be they called in on the company's WATS extender, like I do when I work at home for my firm. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 30 Aug 90 13:49:42 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY What is "toll saver"? Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to say. Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:46:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Several Special Issues in Transit Two more special issues are planned for Friday night: One will contain numerous messages responding to my op-ed on the Epson email suit. I've received a huge number of replies, and will squeeze in as many as possible by eliminating all but one set of reference quotes; no signatures, etc. The other will deal with responses to the op-ed on the problem getting 10288 from the company switchboard. This issue will also be crammed full of individual replies. In both instances, I will glibly explain what I said and what I meant in those messages. :) Watch for these Friday night/Saturday morning. You should have received three special issues Thursday evening. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #608 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10538; 31 Aug 90 4:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03898; 31 Aug 90 2:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16820; 31 Aug 90 1:50 CDT Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 1:22:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #609 BCC: Message-ID: <9008310122.ab17745@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Aug 90 01:22:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 609 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest [Donald E. Kimberlin] Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment [Steve Vance] Conference Calling - Try the Local CO! [Steve Elias] Different 'To' and 'From' Lines [Dolf Grunbauer] Telecommunications Management Software [Harvey Newstrom] How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used? [Paolo Bellutta] Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Paolo Bellutta] Caller ID and Modem Codes [Krishna E. Bera] 900 Supervision and Other Rumors [Bill Cerny] Re: Automated Salesmen [Tad Cook] Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Steve Friedl] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 00:27 CDT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@MCIMail.com> Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject was titled: Re: What Hath God Wrought? In article, (Digest v10, iss604) Brader quotes Isaac Asimov concerning the "true" inventor of telegraphy, wherein Asimov credits Joseph Henry for the "invention." Henry undoubtedly contributed much toward the ultimate development of Morse's telegraph, but there were also a myriad of others who developed electrical signaling schemes for railway block traffic control. Many of these were extremely complex multi-wire, balanced-bridge DC wire circuits that would daunt one of today's Telco "wire experts." The railroad industry came to call these "telegraph," for they evolved into schemes that could signal representations of alphabetic characters and transmit messages. What fell to Morse's credit was doing it all on one wire with a serial signaling technique. But, even there, Morse seems to be overcredited, even in Asimov's book, as quoted by Brader in his message cited: >From "Asimov's New Guide to Science": >Morse's main original contribution to telegraphy was the system of >dots and dashes known as the Morse Code. Even the so-called "Morse Code" was not Morse's invention, but that of his shopworker subordinate named Vail (probably an ancestor of the Vail of AT&T fame). Morse was, in fact, an arrogant, foppish son of a rich man who frequently took long yacht trips and sessions painting in oils, leaving Vail to do the work. Morse's idea of the "instrument" to send telegraph signals was a cumbersome, piano-keyboard-like thing he called a "portrule," on which one set up the character to send, then pressed on a long lever for it to send the pulses to line. During one period of Morse's absence, Vail gave up on trying to manufacture a portrule that would work, and instead made a "key" like the one we have all seen, including a means to use it for transmission ... the code. So, what we have all been taught to call the "Morse Code" should probably really be called the "Vail Code." Morse's son wrote a two-volume biography in which he was not at all kind to his father's image. Serious students should look it up. (While I read and enjoy Asimov, he does suffer errors trained into him, just as we all do.) And, I note some readers on here have little time for "history lessons." However, if one really studies the books and how the first developers did these things, it opens a great insight into the simple basis of many of today's "wonders of telecommunications." The final truth is that all the real _processes_ were accomplished many years ago, with things mechanical and at of course slow speeds in slow volumes. What makes it all possible today is vast improvement in devices, that can do on your desktop what once took a building full of people and hardware, and do it in an eyeblink (sometimes even disgustingly wrong!). But, any complex process we have today can be broken into a series of simple processes, for which we can find an early electromechanical example. Want to understand what you are doing or what you are buying? Read the history. No one said it better than Professor Santayana in about 1903: "Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment Date: 30 Aug 90 04:03:35 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA A friend of mine has a NEC telephone system in his office. It has the ability to run special phones on ten desks. Each of these special phones has five telephone lines on it, twenty buttons for frequently-called numbers, a hold button, etc. All this thru one pair of wires back to the big NEC box in the basement, which connects to the five trunk lines. When the system was installed about five years ago, they only installed eight of the maximum ten stations. Now they want to add the remaining two stations, but they are having a hard time finding the special "desk station" phones anywhere. The dealer that sold them the system can "order them from Japan" at about $600 each. Of course, the dealer is less interested in doing that than selling them a whole new whiz-bang phone system, for mucho bucks. Does anyone know where I can buy a couple of these desk stations cheaply, OR know if there is a "clone" or "compatible" unit that can be substituted? The telephone system is called the "NEC Electra 616". The only markings on the bottom of the desk station (besides date and serial number) are "ET-6-1". ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Conference Calling - Try the Local CO! Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:41:43 -0400 From: Steve Elias If you're into conference calling, methinks it would be worth your money to sign up for three-way calling with your local CO. The quality of conferences through the local CO is *outstanding* in my experience. it's about $2 or $3 per month here in the Beantown area. Also, with this method of conferencing, you can choose the carrier for each leg of the conference. For example, if one of the conferees is in one of those extremely rare areas :) which don't get good Sprint service, you can use ATT to dial that person, while using Sprint to dial the other conferee. eli [Moderator's Note: And by each person in the call having three-way calling of their own, additional parties can be added, with each of the two people you call responsible for adding one more, etc. Also, if your multi-party conference call is strictly local in scope, try your local telco operator. They can also handle conference calls provided everyone is local. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245, Subject: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 13:56:27 MET From: Dolf Grunbauer I always assumed that when making a telephone call the line to the otherside is the same the line back from him to me. The other day someone told me that this is not the case, especially when making a international phone call. According to him it is possible that for example when calling from europe to the USA one line could use a satellite connection while the other could use a transatlantic cable. Is this true? Dolf Grunbauer Tel: +31 55 433233 Internet dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl Philips Information Systems UUCP ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf ------------------------------ From: hnewstrom@x102c.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) Subject: Telecommunications Managment Software Date: 30 Aug 90 20:27:41 GMT Reply-To: hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com (Harvey Newstrom) Organization: Harris_Electronic_Systems Telecommunications Network_Engineering Has anyone had any experience with the following companies, especially as relating to Telecommunications Software? Logica Data Architects, Inc. Stonehouse & Company Westinghouse Communications Software Any experiences or information would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Harvey Newstrom hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com uunet!x102c!hnewstrom (407)727-5176 FAX:(407)727-5118 P.O.Box 37; M/S 15/8873; Melbourne, FL 32902 ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Subject: How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 14:24:03 MET DST Is there a way to determine the type of switch the telco is using? Last December I got my number changed, after a couple of months I discovered by accident that now I can use tone dialling. ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Subject: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 14:24:03 MET DST In Italy the area codes (called prefix) is related to the place (more or less like the prefix in the US). 01xx is north west, 02 is Milan, 03xx is Lombardia, 04xx is north east, 05xx is central, 06 is Rome, 07xx is south west, 08xx is south east, 09xx are the isles. The same occours with the ZIP codes. The prefix can have two digits (Rome and Milan only) three digits (main cities) [example 045 is Verona] four digits (the smaller areas) [0461 is Trento]. Phone numbers usually have from four to eight digits. I noticed that in the US while prefixes are related to the place, area code are not (212 is Manhattan NYC, 213 is L.A.!!!). Is there a reason? Moreover, are there other countries that use prefix-place correlation like in Italy? Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.uucp ITALY bellutta%irst@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Ecept perhaps by coincidence, area codes in the United States do not follow in a path one after another. When area codes were originally laid out, we were using mostly rotary dail phones. It takes longer to dial nines and zeros than ones and twos. So the big cities were all given low area code numbers, on the assumption more people would be calling those places and the dialing would be more convenient with 'short pull' digits. That is why NYC has 212 (quickest, easiest code for rotary dialers); Chicago has 312; Los Angeles has 213; Detroit has 313, etc. Now of course with tone dialing it really doesn't matter. But the area codes do relate to a specific part of the United States or Canada. Its just that they do not fall in any set pattern, except as noted above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Krishna E. Bera" Subject: Caller ID and Modem Codes Organization: Brian's Gang, Ottawa, Canada Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 11:29:59 GMT Has anyone seen what the format of the Caller ID information that is sent between rings looks like? Specifically, what tones/voltages are used? We are trying to build our own decoder for these. Our local telco is Bell Canada, but the format for any telco would be helpful. Please e-mail. Thanks, Krishna E. Bera, Andras Kovacs Programmers and Hardware hackers kebera@alzabo.uucp nrcaer!alzabo!kebera Krishna E. Bera Programmer/Analyst kebera@alzabo.uucp MIL Systems Engineering, Inc. nrcaer!alzabo!kebera Ottawa ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: 900 Supervision and Other Rumors Date: 29 Aug 90 17:53:09 GMT >john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> IPs are admonished to >> provide a "chicken exit" on their recorded intros so that inadvertant >> callers can bail. Southern California IP's call this the "kill message." >My roommate found out, the hard way, that this supervision delay isn't >universally implemented. I was surprised by John's article that stated Telesphere has a 30 second grace period before billing for a 900 call. But my experience with Telesphere tells me this isn't a "consumer protection" thing, but probly a fluke of their billing system. I have a fairly accurate table of 900 NXX codes, identifying the IXC (it's actually Scott's old list, updated with the Sprint prefixes). Readers might get a copy before they post their next 900 horror story. >[Moderator's Note: Here is an example of a 900 number which is routed >to a POTS: Aagghh! 900 numbers don't route to POTS translations! As John posted earlier, the average 900 IP connects to the IXC network via T-span, either at a service bureau (e.g., Lo-Ad Communications) or in their office/home (don't laugh, it's true!). AT&T will provide their 900 Multiquest service over individual dedicated access lines, if you're silly. There are no switched termination arrangements presently available from any of the Big Four 900 IXC's. If you see a POTS number in conjuction with a 900 number, then it is a _separate_ facility that terminates on the same equipment running the 900 program. In the case of the Naval Observatory time, the IP has a dedicated channel from his premises to the Naval Observatory offices (where the 202 POTS number terminates). If the IP has a switch, then he can send a 900 call back into the public switched network if necessary. He could even use the switch to mix 900 circuits and POTS lines to create the illusion that his 900 program has a POTS translation. ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen Date: 29 Aug 90 16:25:19 GMT In article <11213@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cirian@einstein.eds.com (Steve Cirian) writes: > After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and > hung up. I tried to call a friend a minute or two later. To my > surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could > do to break the connection. A thought occurred to me: what if I had > an emergency, needed to call 911, and couldn't because Kodak had tied > my phone up (for at least 5 minutes)? Is this legal? Shouldn't > companies that use this sales strategy be required to have a system > that would recognize a hangup, and break the connection? I had the same problem one time. I called US West, my local phone company, and they said that their switches were programmed to drop an incoming call no later than 22 seconds after the called party hangs up, assuming that the calling party stays off hook. The problem for the telemarketers is that there is no way to detect hookswitch status from the far end ... this is the same problem that private payphones have. But maybe they could listen for dialtone? The problem for emergency callers is that I am unlikely to wait for 22 seconds when I hang up and attempt to call 9-1-1 again. If I keep coming off hook every 10 seconds, which is an agonizing amount of time in an emergency, I will never lose the obnoxious sales call. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom Date: 29 Aug 90 16:13:33 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA Tim Stradtman is looking for a test set that will let him test modems for compatibility without going through real phone lines. Tad Cook (who works for Proctor) responds: > For just doing functional testing of modems, you could use a line > simulator, like the Proctor 49200 Telephone Demonstrator. It has four > lines, with real sounding dialtone, ringback, busy, etc. > You can reach Proctor at 206-881-7000. These units are GREAT! I have one on my desk for testing our fax modem software, and it is absolutely indispensible. Proctor is reportedly coming out with a two-line unit this fall, and I will be getting one of those too for road demos. Steve (who is just a happy customer) Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl Steve's bright idea #43: put TV Guide on CD-ROM for quick access ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #609 ****************************** DUE TO REVERSE IN TRANSMISSION TO THE ARCHIVES, ISSUE 612 ARRIVED FIRST. ISSUES 610-611 FOLLOW, ALONG WITH THREE SPECIAL ISSUES. THE ORDER FOR THE NEXT FIVE ISSUES AFTER 609 (ABOVE) IS 612, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, 610, 611.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06998; 1 Sep 90 4:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05298; 1 Sep 90 2:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01904; 1 Sep 90 1:44 CDT Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 1:02:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #612 BCC: Message-ID: <9009010102.ab01824@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Sep 90 01:02:04 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 612 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson City Codes For the Soviet Union [Soviet Discussion List via Floyd Vest] National Fax Directory (U.S.A.) [Nigel Allen] How to Connect FAX Machine to FAX Card? [Tim Kay] System 75 Features [MISS026@bogecnve.bitnet] Calling Cellular From COCOT [Jack Winslade] Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner] Strange Testing [David Leibold] Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island [Carl Moore] Long Calls, was: Modems/Call Waiting [David Lesher] Trying to Fix Old Phone [Mark Geary] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:57 CDT From: Floyd Vest Subject: City Codes For the Soviet Union Knowing the interest of readers of this Digest in collecting potentially useful telecom trivia, I am passing on this post from the Bitnet Soviet Union discussion list: *** FORWARDED MESSAGE: Subject: Cities & Area Codes Date: 30 Aug 90 From: Igor Yastrzhembsky IKI/SDDPD Sender: USSR news & information list Dear friends, It looks from the mail I receive that a lot of people is interested in obtaining the list of cities and area codes for the USSR. Few remarks: 1) This list is not exhaustive. These are only MAJOR cities. If anybody would like to get an area code for a city not mentioned in the list, drop me a line. 2) I do not know if all these cities can be reached from abroad. But within the USSR they are all 'the same', i.e. there is no difference between calling this or that particular city. 3) If an asterisk appears immediately after city name it means that, for 5 or 6 digit numbers you should add '2' or '22', respectively, before the number i.e. 12345 -> 2212345 or 123456 -> 2123456. If there is NO asterisk you should put '0' or '00' i.e. 12345 -> 0012345 or 123456 -> 0123456 4) You should ALWAYS dial '0' if it appears in the area code! 5) The area code for MOSCOW is 095. 6) I do not bear any responsibility for this list. ===================================================================== Alma-Ata 327 Mogilev 022 Andizhan* 374 Murmansk 815 Arkhangelsk 818 Nalchik 866 Astrakhan 851 Namangan 369 Ashkhabad 363 Nizhnii Novgorod* 831 Baku* 892 Nikolaev 051 Barnaul* 385 Novgorod 816 Batumi 882 Novosibirsk* 383 Belgorod* 072 Odessa 048 Blagoveschensk* 416 Omsk* 381 Brest* 016 Orel 086 Bryansk* 083 Orenburg 353 Bukhara 365 Penza* 841 Vilnus 012 Petrozavodsk 814 Vinnitsa 043 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski 415 Vitebsk* 021 Perm* 342 Vladivostok 423 Poltava* 053 Vladikavkaz* 867 Pskov 811 Vladimir* 092 Pyatigorsk 879 Volgograd* 844 Riga* 013 Vologda* 817 Rovno 036 Voronezh 073 Rostov-na-Donu* 863 Gomel 023 Ryazan 091 Grodno* 015 Samarkand 366 Groznii 871 Saransk 834 Gulistan* 367 Saratov* 845 Dzhizak 372 Sverdlovsk* 343 Dnepropetrovsk 056 Simferopol* 065 Donetsk* 062 Smolensk 081 Dushanbe 377 Sochi 862 Erevan 885 Stavropol* 865 Zhitomir 041 Sumi 054 Zaporozhje 061 Sukhumi 881 Ivanovo* 093 Siktivkar* 821 Ivano-Frankovsk 034 Tallinn* 014 Izhevsk* 341 Tambov 075 Irkutsk* 395 Tashkent* 371 Ioshkar-Ola 836 Tbilisi* 883 Kazan* 843 Tver* 082 Kaliningrad 011 Termez 376 Kaluga* 084 Tomsk 382 Karaganda 321 Tula* 087 Karshi 375 Tumen* 345 Kemerovo* 384 Uzhgorod 031 Kiev* 044 Ulan-Ude* 301 Kirov 833 Ulyanovsk 842 Kirovograd 052 Ufa 347 Kishinev 042 Fergana 373 Kostroma* 094 Frunze 331 Krasnodar 861 Khabarovsk 421 Krasnoyarsk* 391 Kharkov 057 Kuibishev* 846 Tsilinograd 317 Kurgan* 352 Cheboksari 835 Kursk 071 Chelyabinsk 351 Kustanai* 314 Cherkassi* 047 Leningrad 812 Chernigov* 046 Lipetsk 074 Chernovtsi 037 Lugansk* 064 Chita 302 Lutsk 033 Elista 847 Lvov* 032 Juzhno-Sakhalinsk 424 Magadan 413 Yalta 060 Makhatchkala 872 Yakutsk* 411 Minsk* 017 Yaroslavl* 085 ===================================================================== IAY Igor Yastrzhembsky Voice: +7-095-333-50-89 Space Research Institute Fax: +7-095-310-70-23 Profsoyuznaya St. 84/32 TELEX: 411498 STAR SU 117810 Moscow, USSR E-mail: OCC111@ESOC1.BITNET Floyd Vest Auburn University ##### fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu ##### ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:27 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: National Fax Directory (U.S.A.) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. If your company or organization would like to be listed free of charge in the National Fax Directory, please write to or call: General Information Inc. 401 Parkplace, Suite 305 Kirkland, WA 98037 telephone (206) 828-4777 fax (206) 827-8562 The directory only lists U.S. fax numbers. Residents of other countries may be able to get information about fax directories for their country from a local fax machine dealer or telecommunications administration. ------------------------------ From: Tim Kay Subject: How to Connect FAX Machine to FAX Card? Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:10:37 GMT I have a Fax machine and a Fax card. I'd like to use the Fax machine as a 200 dpi scanner without having to tie up two phone lines. What do I do to plug them together? Can I simply tie them in parallel with a 48 V supply also in parallel? Do I have to simulate a ring signal? Tim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 04:13:00 -0500 From: MISS026@bogecnve.bitnet Subject: System 75 Features Can anyone tell me how to order a copy of the installer/programmer's manual for an AT&T System 75 system? The place where my mom works has a feature which allows select persons to listen in to any phone call they wish -- without the usual click. While I think this is crappy to do, it does have it's purposes if you run a telemarketing company and want to make sure your employees are doing their job well ... Suffice it to say, she's a manager, and lower-level peons which "got the codes out of the installer" are listening in to everyone's phone conversations. Is there any way to set Deny Executive Override (or whatever it is to cut out this feature) from the individual extension -- it's kinda tough to get to the KSU. Please reply to me directly ... I'm not often viewing the list. Thanks in advance, Greeny BITNET: MISS026@BOGECNVE Internet: MISS026%BOGENCVE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU GEnie: GREENY AOL: GREENY1 CI$: 72567,457 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:30:52 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Calling Cellular From COCOT Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 Yesterday afternoon I had to make a quick call to a friend who had a US West cellular phone. The only phone around was a COCOT, but what the heck, I needed a phone. Drop the quarter in, get a somewhat realistic phony dial tone, dial the number, long pause. Ring .... ring .... ring .... {with no answer} ... ring 'The mobile phone you are calling is not answering at this time, please {loud click, COCOT swallows quarter} try your call again later.' Now I know the far end did not supervise. I've done this on 'real' pay phones and they do not rip off the coins. I figure this COCOT only guessed at the loss of ringback tone and figured it had an answer. Maybe they should put the BOOOP-boop-beep tritones on the cellular 'no response' intercept. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: Do you ever call up the COCOT owner to complain and get a refund when a private payphone steals your money like that? I have done so, and they sent me a *check* for 25 cents! Illinois Bell at least sends little credit slips you can turn in when you pay your own phone bill. They used to send loose change to you in the mail, taped to a card which said 'sorry we were unable to refund your money on your call the other day ...' but they had to quit that because so many people were ripping them off. Maybe that is why the COCOT people send checks also. When AT&T sends out refunds for money lost in coin phones they send a check also, marked "Pay to the Order of The Telephone Company" and you can turn it in with your phone bill to them or the local telco, or whoever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Answering Machine Messages Date: 30 Aug 90 14:02:33 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY I have my full name on my home answering machine messages, "Hi. This is Mitch Wagner. I can't come to the phone just now... " etc. etc. etc. I notice most people have just their first name, or even just "You have reached 555-1212." This is, I think, so people don't give out information that can be used to take advantage of them. But, what information is that? "Gosh, you know my full name! Here's my car keys!" Is there an actual reason for withholding this information? Or is it just one of those paranoid, half-baked Krimestopper Tips that makes just enough sense on he surface to keep people from questioning it? Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Strange Testing Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:30:56 EDT Does anyone know what the following tests (as found on a DMS 100 switch) are for: 1. Dial a test number, receive four quick rings (about 1/sec) then silence. 2. Dial another test number, rings twice (normal ringing) then returns to a normal dial tone allowing dialing as usual. 3. A test which sounds like a short fax carrier blast, then silence. 4. A couple of numbers that don't do anything but sit there silently. Any ideas on what any of the above are would be appreciated, as well as any other weird and wonderful stuff that anyone else has found. || djcl@contact.uucp /// David Leibold ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 9:51:19 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island schwartz@aiag.enet.dec.com writes that a call from 212 to 516 is local. But I had a message from roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu saying that the call in question was going about 20 or 30 miles beyond Cold Spring Harbor. Back in the 1970s (I don't know what has changed in the meantime), the message-unit calling area from NYC went as far east as the Amityville, Cold Spring Harbor, and Farmingdale exchanges, which are somewhere around the Nassau-Suffolk border. Fisher's Island, NY: It's served by 516-788, and is more easily reached reached from Connecticut than it is from the rest of N.Y.state. It is toll from other parts of area 516 (and of course this would make it a toll call from NYC). Calls to Fisher's Island are apparently routed thru Connecticut, according to info I read from a 1982 tape (also, Fisher's Island has a Connecticut zipcode 06390, which long ago replaced 11943; and at least one church lumps it in with a Connecticut, not a N.Y. state, diocese). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 18:32:07 -0400 From: David Lesher Subject: Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting) {can you time up a dial-up line all month?} |Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this? I've never heard |of a maximum period of time for a phone call. I consulted my phone |book, and the term it uses is untimed. An alarm distributor once told me that Sonitrol {sp} tried this. They offered an alarm system that triggered on loud noises inside the buildings at night. Then the alarm office could listen, mike by mike, to hear if it was an intruder, or a burping furnace. To do they, they used standard dialup lines, and kept them open all night, or all weekend. Ma took them up the court ladder, and won. I suspect the tariffs have some catchall phrase about "abnormal use" or such. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Lord High Everything Else Subject: Trying to Fix Old Phone Date: 31 Aug 90 02:02:48 GMT Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science I have a telephone that I'm trying to fix. The dictionary identifies it as a "300" model telephone. We last used it in 1976 and it worked fine then. Now, when I plug it in I can dial out; it will ring when we receive a call and I can answer the call and here the other party's voice; but when I try to talk, it won't transmit my voice. I've tried swapping the microphone element with a phone that works, and I know that it is good, so the fault must be elsewhere in the phone. I've looked inside and nothing obvious is broken, but, while I can identify most of the individual components, I don't know how they all work together. Can anyone give me advice on fixing this telephone, or tell me where to look for information? | Mark Geary, Department of Computer and Information Science | | The Ohio State University, 2036 Neil Ave., Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 | | ...!{pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!geary (614) 292 - 0915 | | geary@cis.ohio-state.edu or geary@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #612 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08316; 1 Sep 90 5:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02191; 1 Sep 90 3:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad05298; 1 Sep 90 2:51 CDT Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 1:45:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying - Part 1 of 2 BCC: Message-ID: <9009010145.ab02941@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Sep 90 01:42:00 CDT Epson Email - Part 1 of 2 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Many of You] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Date: Sat, 1 Sep 1990 01:00:00 CDT Here are several responses received this week from readers of the op-ed on the Epson email case. Quotes have been severely cut back. This is part one of two parts -- yes, I told you the mail came flooding in this week! :) From: bei@halley.uucp Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX If I have any opinion at all, it's a gut reaction that a company can legally monitor the phones of its workers, but ethically shouldn't unless their job involves phone contact with the public. The best justification for this comes from a friend who works at one of those big three-letter companies, when he was explaining why his company should relax its restrictions on Usenet news. He said that the company should provide space, time and access for news for the same reasons they have soda machines and a jogging track: To make a better work environment. From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" John Higdon and the TELECOM Moderator make extremely good points from the business viewpoint on the subject. The business is paying and they own everything on the computer. However, like most subjects there is more than one side: the employee, employer, and the third party ... What about the non-Epson employee who sends email to the Epson employee over the internet or their paid account on Compuserve or somewhere else? (I realize this is probably not the case but we are talking about privacy of email.) Does the company have a right to read mail from him to an epson employee? To employ the paper analogy, If I send US mail to John Doe at his Acme, Inc. place of work, does Acme have the right to open it? If you say no, Acme can say that it costs them money to distribute it internally so they have a right. Sure they can refuse it but then they could have refused the email from the remote site. At my government work site, the telephone book states that I consent to telephone monitering by using the phone. That means they have my consent but what about the person I am calling. What happens when a another person calls me; have they consented to thier call being monitored? I believe the contents of email, telephone, or paper mail should be kept private. A company should be able to prohibit personal use and enforce but never be able to read mail. In my job I send lots of mail that is 100% business related that is meant for only a few people. It would be damaging to some people and the mission itself if other than the people who it was intended for saw it. I don't want my boss or my boss'es boss to know than I am dealing with certain people or organizations. If I found out he could read my mail, I wouldn't send it and productivity would go down. Do your business search maintain the right to search your desk? Personally, I am disgusted that things like this have to go to court in the first place. Employees should respect the property rights of the employer and employers should respect the privacy rights of the employee. There are privacy concerns on email that has nothing to do if that email is personal or not. From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Pat, re this topic, could someone post the court filings? I suspect the case is a little more complex than you make it out. While I agree with you that email/phone calls on company resources are converting the company resources to private use, spying on mail/listening to phone calls is not considered "polite" behavior, and is normally not done unless the abuses become obvious. For employeees to be in a court case with an employer is a sign of *serious* problems of trust. From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA There is a case pending in NJ today. The state claims that the owner of a business in this state monitored telephone calls to/from his employees, while they were at work, without their permission or knowlege. He is charged with several counts of wiretap. Because he is in a heavily-regulated industry, he may be in danger of losing his right to operate his business. The press coverage does not indicate whether the monitored phone calls were considered 'personal', either by the employer or by the employees. A company spokesperson has stated that the monitoring was done by a private investigator hired by the owner to investigate possible fraud by employees. It is further claimed that the monitoring was done without the knowlege of the owner who hired the investigator. Others have stated that the employees whose phones were monitored were believed to be making arrangements to start up a new business in competition with that of their employer. It is not clear that any charges of fraud were ever brought against any current or former employees as a result of the investigation. The case has not come to trial. From: Brendan Kehoe Organization: University of Pennsylvania Uh, sorry that doesn't jive -- I've been running with the assumption that the ECPA gave me the right to *NOT* have email read on, for example, a bulletin board, unless the owner explicitly says that he/she will be doing so to protect their system. Supposedly that whole idea is the BASIS of the ecpa; if it were as you propose, then theoretically you could say that if a call placed by an AT&T subscriber were routed to a US Sprint trunk, for whatever reason (lines down, etc), then US Sprint has the legal right to do whatever they wish with the traffic they forward, since the person that "owns" that traffic isn't a Sprint subscriber? C'mon. If I'm wrong about the way I see this law being interpreted, please correct me ... (but keep the flames to email, ok?). From: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas This suggests that the right to privacy depends on ownership of property. Does a landlord have the right to plant a listening device in an apartment just because the tenant doesn't actually own it? Maybe, according to Pat, since the tenant paid for something, and maybe privacy was part of that something. But suppose I'm a housesitter or a houseguest who hasn't paid a dollar of rent, and suppose the landlord installs a listening device to hear *my* conversation. Does our Moderator *really* want to say that privacy is something one has only if one has paid for it? Suppose the Epson employees testify that they were under the impression that e-mail was private and would not be reviewed by anyone other than the recipient. Suppose they then can testify that they wrote things they would not have written if they had known Epson supervisors were spying on them. [regarding if the company should be able to see all business-related email] This, to me, seems naive. I have never had a job in which it was not true at some point that I had a business-related communication I did not want my boss to review. For example, if I wrote a note to X telling her to include charts in her presentation because the Boss is more impressed by graphics than he is by reasoned logical argument, it is quite likely that I wouldn't want the Boss to see that I had written that, even if the Boss himself knew it to be true. Nor is it always the case that such e-mail would concern something negative about supervisors. Sometimes, communication among peers, while business-related, is informal to a degree that would make it embarrassing if a boss saw it. Finally, it is a mistake, I think, to characterize corporate e-mail use as business or non-business. I cannot think of a computer system of which the following statement is not true: "Informal, 'playful' use is required if the system's formal, 'serious' use is to reach its full potential." The corporate cultures of most computer-related firms (and many other firms too) inculcate the attitude that learning how to use a system is a higher priority than limiting one's use to 'justifiable' circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised if Epson employees, prior to their fateful discovery, had thought that using e-mail for private purposes was tolerated, and perhaps even encouraged, by Epson management. But this last is a side issue. The irreducible fact, it seems to me, is that almost everyone who is given access to a corporate e-mail system is given the impression, directly or indirectly, that her communications are private. Since this is true, the employees may well have acted in reliance on that impression that their e-mail communications would be private, and may thus have been 'tricked' into making statements they otherwise would not have made. >The Epson employees deserve to lose this suit, and I hope the court >requires them to compensate their employer for his expense in >defending it. Obviously, I think this issue is a little subtler than any question of property rights. From: Colin Plumb Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA It is legitimate to complain when it costs the company money, either in phone bills or a material impact on employee work, but I believe minor use of communications facilities is more of a right than a gift. I'm using company equipment to send this message, which is only peripherally related to my work. But I know they don't object. How many repair men and delivery trucks need a daytime phone number? How do you call the hospital to ask how your child/spouse/relative's surgery went? It's silly to expect that work consumes one's undivided attention for hours on end; you have to accept the fact that you're paying people when they're not at top efficiency as well as when they are. Similarly, you have to allow some humanity overhead on communications lines. And if, say, a close friend calls me up in tears after a breakup, I expect to be able to comfort them with some reasonable expectation of privacy. No, not perfect, but anyone who hears part of it should not stick around to hear it all. I need to know more of the details, but Epson's organized eavesdropping efforts seemed excessive. (Note: I'm in the programming business, where there's a very high premium on Keeping Them Happy, so I may have different experiences than others. I've heard stories about A Certain Company that has people keeping in regular touch with girlfriends in Japan and neglects to block long distance from the front-door intercom phone. That seems just a *trifle* cavalier!) From: Jordan Kossack In general, I agree with you and John Higdon that a company has a right to know what their computers, telephones, etc. are used for. On the other hand, there are legitimate privacy concerns on the part of the employees and the persons they communicate with. In your article, you say: - - [ ... ] The right to privacy in email or on the telephone - means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a - mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*. [ ... ] - Likewise with telephones: Your employer has the legal right to monitor By a direct extension of this, I should be allowed to record all telephone conversations in my house/apartment. After all, since I am paying the telephone bill, I am the only one who has a right to privacy on these phone lines. However, if I recall correctly, some states require the permission of both parties before a call can be legally recorded. Now, one may argue that the Epson employee has given his/her implicit agreement by using an Epson owned telephone, but what about the other party? Do they have any 'rights' in this situation? I don't intend this as a flame, since I agree that Epson, or any other company, should be able to control company resources. However, there are privacy concerns to be considered - primarily on the part of the non-employees who sent electronic mail to Epson employees. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying Part 1 of 2 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08530; 1 Sep 90 5:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02191; 1 Sep 90 4:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai05298; 1 Sep 90 2:52 CDT Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 2:36:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying Part 2 of 2 BCC: Message-ID: <9009010236.ab03784@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Sep 90 02:35:00 CDT Epson Email - Part 2 of 2 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Many of You] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Date: Sat, 1 Sep 1990 01:00:00 CST Here are more of the many responses received to the op-ed on Epson. This is part 2 of 2 parts. From: "Carl M. Kadie" In comp.dcom.telecom Patrick Townson writes: >Several employees of Epson America have filed a class action suit >against their employer, accusing Epson of spying on them for several >months by monitoring thousands of their electronic messages. I don't think "monitoring" is the right word; I think "spying" is more accurate. Here is how the OED2 defines "monitor": "In more general use: to observe, supervise, or keep under review;" It defines "spy" as: "To watch (a person, etc.) in a secret or stealthy manner;" Regardless of the the legality of Epson's actions, they behaved unethically by spying on their employees. The ethical alternative would have been to 1) tell all employees that e-mail was to be used for business purposes only 2) to tell employees that their e-mail might will be read by management 3) to tell an employee every time his or her e-mail is actually read. When my manager looks over my shoulder while I work, he or she is monitoring. When my manager watches me through the office keyhole, he or she is spying. From: Charles Bryant Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland In some places (such as Ireland, and I think the UK) it is illegal for the owner of the phone to record conversations without the knowledge and consent of the other party. This obviously implies that an employer is not entitled to record employees' conversations without the consent of both the employees and the parties they call. Is there any similar law in the US? From: Robert E Stampfli Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I must say that I currently presume that any e-mail I send thru my employee account may, at some point, be read by others, even though my company has strict guidelines about such things. The privacy of telephone conversations, however, is protected by a long history of legal standards and societal mores, which make it a somewhat different animal. For instance, the misguided and untenable Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 provides a legal assumption of privacy with regards to cellular calls even though, in this case, privacy cannot be assured. An employer certainly has the right to control company resources, and that includes at some point the right to listen-in on phone conversations made on company lines. However, if such is done prior to notifying those affected that they have no expectation of privacy, then in my opinion, a privacy violation has occurred and those affected have every right to seek legal redress. That is what the courts are for. Maybe one day, when electronic mail is more mature and accepted, we will employ the same standards with this media. From: peter da silva Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Pat makes a few unfounded assumptions here. I'm not going to comment on the E-mail aspects of things, but there's a bit much big-brother in the following. > Likewise with telephones: Your employer has the legal right to monitor > your business phone calls to evaluate your performance, etc. If you do > not like him listening to your personal calls, then a counter-question > would be in order: why are your personal phone calls being made on > company phone facilities? Because there is no alternative? > Use the payphone in the cafeteria. What payphone? What cafeteria? The nearest payphone is in a Circle-K over a mile away. I use my own Sprint account (via 1-800-877-8000) for long distance calls. Would my employer have the right to tap those? From: David Dick Organization: Software Innovations, Inc. Do you believe it is reasonable for the administrator of their telephone system to record and review all phone calls made on their phone system? How about salary discussions? Do you believe it is reasonable for the people responsible for maintaining offices and meeting rooms to be privy to everything that goes on in those rooms? Including salary discussions and employee discipline and firings? I don't think that the fact that Epson owns the machines that the email was carried on *necessarily* implies that the company or *more importantly* a mere functionary, who is supposed to administer the email facility, is entitled to violate the confidentiality of those communications. I agree that, in the matter of personal use of company machines (or resources of any kind), Epson is entitled to be upset with misappropriation. However, even in the conduct of company business, I don't think it is an absolute that the "company" deserves every detail, and I think an administrator of a communications facility (of whatever kind) is not entitled to eavesdrop, except when authorized for specific purposes (and possibly not even then). From: Thomas Lapp I read an article in {Information Week} which had this as a cover article. The lady in question was upset because she was sending business-related e-mail to person B. Her supervisor intercepted the mail (which was not addressed, nor intended to be seen by him), and after viewing it, fired her for insubordination (and in a way which wasn't exactly professional, either). If I recall that article from memory, she had asked her boss for an account on a public e-mail system so that she could use it to do work from home, or somesuch. He refused. Her message that was intercepted was to someone else in the company asking the procedures for getting this account. I don't think she had actually TOLD the other fellow to get her one, just asking how to go about it. (Shucks, I've done the same thing: send e-mail asking about the procedure before I ask my boss for the okay. If she approves, it gets done even faster, and if she doesn't it isn't a lot of time wasted -- it may be approved later anyway as things change.) I don't disagree with you Patrick, on the idea of not using business resources for personal use. And I agree that anything I type on my company owned terminal and e-mail system has every right to be audited by the company. Same as making personal calls at work. I think that based upon your message and the article I read in {Information Week}, I think that the suit is going for the wrong thing. There seems to be three possible suits here, and only the first two are worth pursuing: Firing the lady in a most unprofessional way, supervisor reading confidential documents (ie. the BUSINESS e-mail message not sent nor intended for him), and the privacy of corporate e-mail in general. I say that the second is worthwhile as well, but I'll save that for another posting if there is any interest. From: kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA In article <11387@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > You should have heard the squeals when we put the hard copy in front > of these people. Offers to pay were ignored -- my company was not in > the telecom reselling business. The point was: we wanted people to > stop using the bloody phone for personal business. It blocked REAL > calls, distracted the person from doing his job cheating us out of the > time we were paying for, and the cost of the calls took the money out > of our pockets. > Everywhere I have gone, people treat the phone on their desk as their > own personal service. It also happens to be handy for use in their > work. Oh well, who wouldn't want to save 100% on his long distance > calls? The above happened to me as well. I made a point of asking people to not use the phone for personal use, quick phone calls were "ok", but certainly not to extend to 90 minutes talking to ones significant other. My pleas went unheard until we shut the long distance off except at my desk. It is sad that things like this happen. However, I hope that there was a policy in place stating that the messages were being monitored. People have come to expect that thier incoming US mail will not be opened while at work, I think that this expectation has been extended to cover Email as well. I don't know what the answer is here, but it seems that some legislation is in order here. From: Linc Madison Organization: University of California, Berkeley I disagree entirely. If you use a piece of company-owned stationery to write a personal letter, the company has no right whatsoever to read it, not even if you use a company-owned pen to write it on company time and use a company postage meter. They can ask you to reimburse them their costs, they can fire you for misuse of their property, but they CANNOT read the message. PERIOD. As to the point about telephone lines, the company does not have the right to monitor its employees' telephone conversations without PRIOR NOTICE AND CONSENT of the employee. I rather doubt that any of these employees was notified and gave consent that any e-mail sent could be monitored and printed out. Furthermore, if I am a guest at someone's house and use her telephone and she (unknown to me) taps the line, she has committed an illegal act. (At least that's how the law reads to me.) It doesn't matter if she let me use the phone under particular conditions which I violated; she has tapped a phone conversation without the consent of either party, and that's illegal, even though it's her phone. The company is entitled to keep records of to whom e-mail was sent and the size of the message. If they are concerned about private e-mail, they have the right to call an employee in and say, "We see that on August 26 at 11:35 you sent 126 KB of e-mail to foo@bar. What was the purpose of this message?" If the employee cannot provide an acceptable answer, the company can take action against the employee (including requesting reimbursement for the cost of sending the e-mail or firing the employee or docking the employee's pay for the time spent). However, unless the employee has made a prior agreement that e-mail is to be used only for business purposes, the employer's case is tenuous except on the misuse of company TIME. If the company reads the e-mail without prior consent, it's wiretapping, it's invasion of privacy, it's illegal, and they deserve to get sued. The right to privacy is in no way contingent on ownership of the premises. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying Part 2 of 2 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08536; 1 Sep 90 5:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00702; 1 Sep 90 0:35 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30128; 31 Aug 90 23:29 CDT Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:39:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls BCC: Message-ID: <9008312239.ab27696@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:36:00 CDT Special: Blocking 10xxx Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls [Various writers, responding to Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls Date: 31 Aug 90 19:00:00 CDT (Fri) A few days ago in the Digest, a reader wrote to explain the difficulty encountered when trying to make a call to International Directory Assistance from his office PBX. For some reason (I will leave it to your imagination what it was), the company had all long distance service blocked except via MCI. No doubt at some point, someone told them the BIG LIE about 'how much money they would save' by using MCI as their long distance carrier exclusively. Rather than ask their employees to use the default carrier as much as possible and only make exceptions as needed, they simply blocked the switch from all 10xxx access. Then came the day an employee needed to call International Directory Assistance in some country MCI does not serve. MCI kept telling him to use AT&T (for the free, directory only portion of the call, mind you!), but his switch would not permit the connection. The MCI rep suggested calling AT&T at the International Information Center and lying about it, telling them they were a customer of AT&T. Finally the suggestion was made to use a nearby payphone! Aside from being amused at the folks who never yet have realized that you get what you pay for; and that for years, MCI was famous -- or infamous perhaps -- for skimming the cream while leaving heavily-regulated AT&T to carry the losers, I was amazed that after such an experience, the company with the PBX would still persist in thinking that MCI was such a great deal ... or do they? The few cents they 'saved' on the call -- once it was made, if it was finally accomplished -- were more than offset by the time wasted by employees trying to manipulate the phone and PBX to get the call through! So AT&T is to handle directory assistance calls to India, Pakistan, Venezula, and similar countries where the phone service is poor, you can wait for five minutes of ringing before the operator answers and another ten minutes after she answers and goes to look up your number all the while MCI handles the very profitable east coast corridor traffic in the USA. Is that the way it works? If you ever wonder why MCI gives discount rates, consider all the expenses they *do not* have: i.e. a very expensive to operate international center in Pittsburg, a toll free international information center, etc. If you want quality, you have to pay for it. One AT&T supervisor told me it is routine to spend 10-15 minutes on the line with one customer if that customer is calling Directory Assistance in certain countries I will not name here. We regular users of AT&T International Service have the MCI abusers to thank for the fact that the Pittsburg IOC is now clamping down on making directory assistance calls without an actual call -- which they place for you -- following immediatly. But I digress ... Is it legal to block access to 10xxx from any phone? According to both Illinois Bell and AT&T, 10xxx access may not be denied from any phone. Likewise, 911 may not be denied from any phone, although perhaps you would not be so foolish as to want to do that. Illinois Bell will, on request, set your default carrier to NONE, meaning you must dial 10xxx on every call, but they will not do away with 10xxx itself. And in the example before us, its a dumb thing to do anyway ... at least if you are expecting the OCC which gives you such low rates to actually handle the drudge jobs only AT&T is *forced* to handle at present. Here are some replies received in the past couple days: From: John Higdon On Aug 29 at 1:33, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: While you are at it, why not call in whoever does > your PBX programming and ask him when he can get his act together and > correct the *illegal* blocking of 10xxx. PAT] Wait a minute. Didn't we just conclude that the owner of a PBX had the right to control it in regards to his business? At the customer's request, I have programmed an ITT 3100 to block 10XXX access. The proprietor subscribes to no less than three different carriers and has a complex routing table to select via trunk or access code the carrier that provides the least cost at that particular time to the particular destination. He does NOT want someone, employee or otherwise, to select his own carrier and in effect override the (laboriously worked out by me) tables for his own purposes or convenience. 10XXX blocking may be "illegal" from COCOTs, but it is certainly up to the business owner to determine how his business calls are being routed. If they are not business calls, then maybe a final check is in order. [Moderator's Note: AT&T claims it is illegal. Certainly, the average employee will dial the PBX's LD access code, and then just dial the number, letting the routing tables do their thing. But show me where in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some far-away country? PAT] From: How can this be illegal? If the equipment is owned and operated by INMOS, aren't they free to program it as they see fit? If not, how is it different from the lawsuit pending against Epson, where the Telecom Moderator advocates the position that "what the Company owns (for its own use), the Company can do what the Company wants"? If INMOS were in the business of providing public phone service, I'd agree with the Telecom Moderator. As it stands, though, while it may be inconvenient, it certainly isn't illegal. Jeff E. Nelson | jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | Affiliation given for identification purposes From: Kian-Tat Lim I don't believe that it's illegal (or unethical) for a private business owner to block the use of 10XXX on the business' PBX. This is not a public telephone, after all. In fact, with outgoing WATS trunks and lowest-cost routing, 10XXX may not even make sense on a PBX. Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wag240.wag.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) [Moderator's Note: You do not consider it illegal or unethical for a PBX to have 10xxx blocked, but do you consider it *stupid* for them to do so? If they want employees to pay for their personal calls, why not allow 10xxx so that the employee can put it on his AT&T Card or Sprint Card if desired? PAT] From: Jim Budler Pat, I don't understand how it can be illegal for a Company owned PBX to block access to 10xxx on it's own phone lines, when the lines, use of the lines, and payment of the bills is completely provided at the discretion, if not pleasure of the Company. I realize that such blocking can prevent an employee using his own credit card for billing a call, thus encouraging petty embezzlement, but the right to use the phone itself is under the control of the Company. jim Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 From: Colin Plumb Excuse me? If it's the company's dime, it seems they can do anything they like with it. It's only illegal if you're selling the service. Or is it unfair to the carriers, and do those rulings bind PBX's as well as LEC's? Please elaborate. And remember the recent condemnation of non-company calls on company telephones. Colin [Moderator's Note: My understanding is that yes, it is illegal to block 10xxx from any phone technically equipped to handle it. And if you are giving the use of the phone to your employees as a fringe benefit, then that would sort of be tantamount to selling the service, no? If the slaves don't provide you with their labor, they won't have a desk to sit at any longer to make calls. And yes, I remember the condemnation of non-company calls on company phones. What does that have to do with a *business call* to some country where MCI will not connect you with directory assistance? PAT] From: Dave Levenson I'm curious about this claim ... I understand that it is illegal for a public telephone, or one in a public place such as a hotel room or an airport, to block access to 10xxx. I was not aware that it is illegal to block such access from non-public phones, such as those provided by a company for the use of its employees on company business. Is this actually the case? Is AT&T legally required to allow its employees to select MCI when calling on company business or from company-provided telephones? (They don't.) Just curious! Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [Moderator's Note: Are you saying that if someone using the phone in an AT&T office dials 9 (or whatever for an outside line) that New York Telephone blocks 10xxx access at that point? Or is the 9-level call completely processed internally before the switch ever lets it out of the system and into NYT's hands? No company is required to 'allow' its employees to select anything. You say to your employees, "Don't let us catch you making calls over carrier 'x' ... ", and if they do it, you make them justify it. But how can you deny the employee the right to use his own calling card of the company of his choice? Yours is an extreme example. I can't see why they would want to use MCI. There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around. PAT] From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" I really don't think this is a case of illegal blocking, Pat. Don't you think his company can choose what long distance company they want to use? If you were the telecom manager, and you had selected MCI for your calls, would you want people using AT&T anyway? Here were I work, 10xxx is also blocked, but only because our PBX determines which carrier has the lowest rate for my particular call and routes it accordingly. Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238 jjc+@unix.cis.pitt.edu, jjc@pittvms.bitnet, +1 412 624 6424, FAX +1 412 624 6436 [Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory assistance in the middle-east somewhere also. If the nearest payphone is on the corner be sure when you come back to advise the telecom manager how much money you saved that day by having carrier 'x'. PAT] From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Our esteemed moderator writes: I'm not so sure about this. I know that it is illegal to block 10+ access from public phones, but I don't think this applies to a company who owns its own PBX. Can anyone clarify this one way or the other. If I owned a PBX which was for "official company use" I might want to make sure employees don't use any carrier but the one I selected. Since I pay the bill, I think I should be in control of such things. I realize this is not clear-cut because of credit card calls. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 From: Hofer I don't see why this blocking of alternate carriers is illegal. In a post several days ago you asserted that a business has the right to control the phones which it pays for. If it is OK for the company to evesdrop on employee phone calls and the like, why isn't it OK for the company to control what LD carriers the employees can access? Personally, I value the right to privacy more than the right to choose LD carriers. Doug Hofer mkn@mace.cc.purdue.edu [Moderator's Note: A company has the right to control the phones it pays for, as long as it does not attempt to place illegal controls on the use of the phones. As an example, a company does not want its employees to call 911, so it blocks it out. That is illegal. To the best of my knowledge and belief, blocking 10xxx is also illegal. It is not illegal to 'eavesdrop' on employee business calls because a tariff along the way says it is not illegal, and makes provision for supervisory monitoring in the conduct of the company's business. And the company *can* tell the employees what long distance company to use for *business* calls. If the company allows personal use of its phones, then it cannot legally block the personal user from using a credit card of his choice, or a third number call, or collect call, or whatever, and placing it on the carrier of his choice. To say you value privacy over the right to choose a long distance carrier is a very strange comment. The two have nothing to do with each other. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls ****************************** DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, ISSUE 612 CAME AHEAD OF THE THREE SPECIAL ISSUES OF FRIDAY NIGHT, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 1. ISSUES 610 AND 611 GOT HERE AFTERWARD AND FOLLOW NOW.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08682; 1 Sep 90 5:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00702; 1 Sep 90 0:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30128; 31 Aug 90 23:29 CDT Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:11:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #610 BCC: Message-ID: <9008312311.ab29501@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:10:52 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 610 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Tom Perrine] Re: Real Operators? [John Higdon] Re: Real Operators? [Dave Levenson] Re: Those (900) Numbers [John Slater] Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Carl Moore] Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts [Martin Harriss] Re: Help a Model 500 Ring [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Ron Heiby] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? Date: 31 Aug 90 18:13:59 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article <11511@accuvax.nwu.edu> rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: >Zowie. Now, the only question is who on earth could possibly be >stupid enough to confuse "0-602-NNX-XXXX" with "01-679-NXXXX"... It >would've made more sense with calling Annapolis and got Athens, or ... >or called San Diego and got Perth (with an appropriate comment about >America's cup), or called Tampa and got Tokyo. About eight years ago I was calling work in San Diego from Pheonix using my brand-spanky-new calling card and I *did* get Perth, Australia. It is, of course, just a matter of an extra 0 at the beginning: 0 1 619 4XX XXXX San Diego via calling card 0 01 61 9 4XX XXXX International via calling card When I talked to the operator about the mis-dialed call, I mentioned that I had reached Perth by mistake and she immediately responded: "Oh, you were calling San Diego!". It is apparently a *very* common mis-dial. How convenient that my San Diego work number is also a handy mnemonic for what sounded like a very nice pub in Perth. If I ever get down that way, I'll be set. :-) Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon |UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep Tactical and Training Systems Division |-or- sun!suntan!tots!tep San Diego CA |GENIE: T.PERRINE |+1 619 455 1330 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Real Operators? Date: 31 Aug 90 00:34:58 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon peter da silva writes: > [Three examples of what seem to me to be very similar service.] If this was the impression you got, then I did an inadequate job of describing the events. Amplification must be in order. > As for collect calls: Yes, about collect calls. In the case of AT&T, I simply spoke my name and within five seconds was conversing with my party. In the case of Sprint, I had to give my name, the number I was calling (even after dialing it -- why should I have bothered to dial it?) and the number I was calling from. After all of this I had to wait many seconds for the operator to dial the call from scratch. It made the difference between five seconds and about one minute. That's hardly insignificant. In the case of requesting place name and rate information, the Sprint operators seemed genuinely flustered. The AT&T operators snapped back the information as if in one stroke. The Sprint operators had to leave the line, and that was AFTER I managed to carefully explain what information I needed. > [Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers, > including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The True, but I believe it goes a little further than that. It appears that Sprint is not fully utilizing the data being supplied by the LEC. Otherwise, why would you have to tell the operator both the called and calling number. The last time I remember having to do that was in the early sixties before TSPS. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Real Operators? Date: 31 Aug 90 19:14:58 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <11524@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator adds: > [Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers, > including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The > chain is as strong as its weakest link, etc. The customer knows > nothing of the back office ... but he knows plenty about cranky > service reps; dirty, stinky payphone booths; and phones which rip off > his money. He remembers all the times the operator has sassed him. He > could care less -- if he knows anything at all -- about 195 Broadway. > That is why operators and service reps should be *highly paid* and > *highly trained and skilled*. Its what's up front that counts! PAT] The point is well taken. But on a minor technicality: AT&T no longer lives at 195 Broadway. They've moved. The corporate headquarters is now at 550 Madison Avenue (but still in NYC). This is the unusual-looking building designed by Phillip Johnson, with the "Chippendale" top design. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: John Slater Subject: Re: Those (900) Numbers Date: 31 Aug 90 16:07:18 GMT Reply-To: John Slater Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM In article <11451@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmylod@oracle.nl (Colum Mylod) writes: |> "Calls to this line are charged at 25p per |> minute cheap rate and 38p per minute all |> other times." |> - British Foreign Office answering machine for concerned relatives |> of those trapped in the Gulf. |> |> (These are the charges for the BT 898 service, not the normal trunk |> charges.) Yes, this didn't go unnoticed over here. This is particularly unreasonable (to say the least) when you conside that the information line for business people concerned about events in the Gulf was at normal toll rates. We don't have an equivalent of the US dial-900-and-we'll-charge-what- we-feel-like service, which is probably just as well in the light of the above. "Calls to this line are charged at five pounds for a friend, ten pounds for a blood-relative or twenty pounds for a spouse ..." John Slater Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Date: 31 Aug 90 07:26:11 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <11370@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >It seems to me that at the least, 900 numbers should answer >with a message along the lines of "This number is serviced by company>. You will be charged $2.00 per minute starting after the >third tone. ... boop ... boop ... boop" giving you a chance to hang >up. Here in Japan, the telephone company provides a message before it connects you with any pay-per-call service (except their own, those sleazeballs!). It goes something like... "The charge for this call, inclusive of vendor and toll charges, will be ten yen per XX seconds." Then it connects you to the number, so you have time to hang up if you don't like the charge. It's really neat how they include the toll charges in the message. None of this "Two Dollars plus tolls, if any." What us IPs over here really like is the fact that phone bills are not itemized, so it isn't quite clear just _why_ your phone bill is so much higher this month. Our charges are just included on the line that says something like "Usage Charges: 23,980". Just presenting the other side of the story. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan or or Fax: +81 3 237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 222 8429 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 10:10:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? Here are some comments which I wrote with the international readers in mind. They apply to country code 1. The present area codes are of the form N0X and N1X (where N is any single digit except 0 or 1, and X is any single digit INCLUDING 0 and 1), and were (according to my readings of Telecom) originally laid out so that N0X was assigned to states/provinces having only one area code, and N1X was assigned to states/provinces having more than one area code. (The area codes were given out both to states of the U.S. and to provinces of Canada.) A lot of area codes have been created since then, but you still find that: If a state/province has one area code, it's N0X (this is NO LONGER true the other way around); N1X is in a state/province having more than one area code (but N0X now occurs in some states having more than one area code). Area codes do not cross state or province lines (but this rule is relaxed w/r to Canada's Northwest Territories and w/r to Prince Edward Island in the Canadian Maritime area). Sometime around 1995, area codes of N0X/N1X form are projected to run out, and area codes will have to generalize to NXX. This will prompt many changes in dialing instructions, but some areas (such as Maryland) already have dialing instructions which could accommodate NXX area codes. ------------------------------ From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Subject: Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts Date: 31 Aug 90 14:42:15 GMT Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Organization: Bellcore [ Much stuff deleted about CCITT recomendations] Ok, here's today's trivia question: what were the following tones used for: [ quoted from CCITT reccomendations about tones that answering machines shouldn't use ] > 2040 and 2400 Hz > 600 and 750 Hz > 1200 and 1600 Hz > 500 and 20 Hz > 1000 and 20 Hz Some of them, I think, may be a little obscure to North American readers. I'll followup with some answers in a couple of days. Martin Harriss martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Help a Model 500 Ring Date: 30 Aug 90 21:34:37 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11346@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jcox@x102a.harris-atd.com (Jamie Cox) writes: > I have an old desk top dial phone which works but does not ring. I > The ringer solenoid has four wires, red, white, red/white and black > > Red R/W Blk White > | | | | > \/\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/ > ~ 3k ohms ~ 1k ohms The BLACK and RED go to tip and ring (the green + red line cord wires) probably on (L2) and (L1). Polarity only matters if you get tappity-tapping from an extension rotary dialing or going on/off hook. There are also mechanical adjustments to eliminate tapping. The SLATE (white) and RED/SLATE go to (A) and (K) that are the 2 ends of a 1/2 mfd cap to block talk battery from the ringer coils. There is a lot of history behind those two different size windings, but the simple description is that they provided a second party id by connecting one of them between ground and the electrical midpoint of the transmission network (B) when a second party phone went off hook. The CO could determine which subscriber went off hook - the one with or the one without the connection to ground. ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Date: 28 Aug 90 14:38:39 GMT Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL I believe that another reason why people are concerned about the 900 and 976 numbers and children is because children see Santa Claus on TV telling them to dial a 976 or 900 number to find out what's happening at the North Pole. They see comic book heros telling them to dial the phone to find out their latest adventures. I've yet to see a commercial on TV asking kids to phone a non-976/900 number. Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 31 Aug 90 03:35:17 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11465@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes: > About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to > she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator > says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then > I called my mom. Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT carrier. Let the first carrier lose the return business for being dangerous to use! Just a thought... ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 31 Aug 90 00:57:17 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon "Jeff A. Duffel" writes: > Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most > residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy > Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access') > are billed through Pac*Bell. However, phone card and business customers > are billed directly through Sprint. I didn't "jump" on him, I was simply asking. There is a difference. I have examined my Sprint bill and have found the phrase "COMMERCIAL DIAL 1 SERVICE" at the top of each page. I had never noticed that before and certainly had never set the account up that way. First, it's a residence account, and second, it is a secondary "casual dial" account. Perhaps the "commercial" designation happened when they took it over from US Telecom. > >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a > >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US > >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. > >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are > >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. > Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up? Not > everyone's case is exactly like yours. Every one of my friends has or has had a Sprint account. Every one of them was billed by Sprint. Many of my clients have Sprint accounts. All of them are billed by Sprint. Of at least twenty accounts, I know of no one who pays from their Pac*Bell bill. This is hardly a parochial observation and in light of that I think that my questions were valid. No one's comments on this forum (including mine, the Moderator's or anyone else's) are the revealed word of God. When someone makes a catagorical statement that differs from imperical evidence, questions with the attendant claifications are in order. I'm sorry if you took offense at my questions; apparently the original poster did not and answered them to my satisfaction. That, for your information, is what this whole exercise is all about. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Speak for yourself, John! Did I see my name taken in vain above? I rely exclusively on Rev. Bob Dobbs for my truth. If he says its true, then I print it here in the Digest. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #610 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08844; 1 Sep 90 5:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01904; 1 Sep 90 1:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00702; 1 Sep 90 0:38 CDT Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:53:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #611 BCC: Message-ID: <9008312353.ab30548@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:53:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 611 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Reach Out and Touch the Bureaucracy [Portland Oregonian via George Pell] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Bill Huttig] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Tad Cook] Legal Definition of Harassment [Leroy Donnelly] Re: Intercept Recording [Andrew Hastings] Intelligent Intercept by OTC [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] The Number You Have Reached... [Roy Smith] Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Peter da Silva] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Octothorpes [Nelson Bolyard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: George Pell Subject: Reach Out and Touch the Bureaucracy (Was: Getting Action) Date: 31 Aug 90 22:50:13 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. The Portland Oregonian Thursday August 30, 1990 Margie Boule' "Reach out and touch the bureaucracy" Irnalee Stohrs is not having any trouble at all adjusting to the quiet in her apartment. [recap of problem with Multnomah County juvenile court printing her number on 4000 summons, and then refusing to do anything about it] So on Sunday, it was suggested that people call the correct number for the juvenile court system Monday morning, and ask for Irnalee. The idea was that mayby the people at the court would say to themselves, "Boy, these wrong numbers are really a hassle. Maybe this is what Irnalee Stohrs has been going through. Why don't we print new summonses, with the right phone number on them, so she doesn't have to deal with any more pesky phone calls?" Which is close to what happened. The first callers set to work as early as 7:15 Monday morning. They report that the court operators were "amused" when they asked for Irnalee. They were transferred to the state department that prints the summonses. By 8:15, readers report, the operators were beginning to sound "curt." "She said I had a wrong number," said a guy named Al, who runs an auto body store. "She sounded pretty sore about it, and then she hung up." By 8:30, few callers were able to get past the busy signals. One fellow, who works at Tektronix, put the number on his autodialer. "When I finally got through," he says, "I asked for Irnalee, and the woman said, 'Wrong...' and she hung up before she even said 'number.'" Most folks who reported back had no luck at all placing calls. An attorney with one of the largest firms in town said several lawyers in his firm had called all day long and had never gotten through. In fact, the calls were so heavy, the juvenile court system was virtually without phone service on Monday. Which, of course, was not the intent of the suggestion. The idea was to create sympathy for Irnalee's situation, not create a crisis at the court. To all those who were unable to conduct business with the juvenile court system at the beginning of the week, I apologize. Nevertheless, Irnalee has finally been given some assistance. The court arranged for Irnalee to have a temporary new telephone number. And they arranged for an intercept. So now, when somone calls Irnalee's old phone number, an operator comes on and asks, "Who are you calling?" If the caller says Irnalee, Irnalee's new number is given. In addition, the court has formally apologized to Irnalee. The trial court administrator has sent her a letter of apology, as has the chief judge. And the juvenile court referees even sent Irnalee flowers. The best part of all is that when the new summonses - with the correct court phone number - are printed in a few weeks, Irnalee will get her old phone number back. (The next best part is that the court is picking up the bill for the temporary new number. It was hooked up Monday afternoon.) "I'm as happy as can be," says Irnalee Stohrs. But please do not call the juvenile court system to thank them for solving Irnalee's problem. The court operators are just not in the mood. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: 31 Aug 90 15:59:01 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <11518@accuvax.nwu.edu> csense!ka3ttu@uunet.uu.net (James Van Houten - KA3TTU) writes: >I called and after waiting in queue for about two minutes I asked the >Operator for our little old friend and the Operator said Quote "Please >stop calling here." It appears that they are getting plenty of >calls!! Hope this helps our distant friend!! But what did the operator do that was bad? It wasn't her fault that the number was mis-printed? Why make the poor operator mad? You should ask for the bozo who wouldn't change the form, and when he answers ask for the 'old friend'. (Just think what it would like to be that operator). Bill [Moderator's Note: Please recall the original report. When Irnalee first reported the problem, it was the operator who *refused* to put her through to anyone -- even her own supervisor! The operator of all people should have known the importance of having numbers correctly published. Irnalee had to call various times before finally the operator put her through to someone who at least would deal with the problem, even if the way they dealt with it was to toss it back at Irnalee to worry about. That is what the operator did that was 'bad'. It was not her fault the listing was wrong, but she made no effort to correct the problem either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: 31 Aug 90 22:45:42 GMT SUBJECT: Wrong Number! A couple of years ago, a GTE company in the midwest printed up a handy little wallet card that listed tech support numbers for various telephone equipment manufacturers, and distributed them to their repair folks in the field. Unfortunately, for TIE they listed our company's 800 number! Since I do tech support on telephone products, the calls all got routed to me. It didn't matter that our receptionist answered with our company name ... or that I told them that the MOD-KEY 16 was not manufactured by our firm ... these guys refused to believe that they had not reached TIE! Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:38:58 EDT From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Legal Definition of Harassment Reply-to: Leroy.Donnelly@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 For those interested, I pulled the legal wording from my Black's law dictionary. Harassment: Used in variety of legal contexts to describe words gestures and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person. A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to harass another, he: (1) makes a telephone call without purpose of legitimate communications; or (2) insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; or (3) makes repeated communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language; or (4) subjects another to an offensive touching; or (5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor. Model Penal Code, 250.4. (Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition) [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS (CP/M, the virus-proof OS), Omaha -- --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Leroy.Donnelly@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Andrew.Hastings@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings Date: 29 Aug 90 20:29:40 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article <11439@accuvax.nwu.edu> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard >this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are >being taken on xxx-xxxx"? It means that the person who had service at the disconnected number did not get new service at his/her new location. The "calls are being taken by" number was already in service. When I moved out of the Twin Cities area, I told NW Bell to refer calls to my sister who still lived in the area. It would be incorrect to say that my number was "changed" to her number. Another situation where this message is used is if you decide to share an apartment with someone who already has telephone service at that apartment. Andy Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Intelligent Intercept by OTC Date: 31 Aug 90 14:57:53 (UTC+10:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne It appears OTC, Australia's international carrier, goes to significant lengths to check dialled numbers for validity. On May 6th, this year, the London area code 01 was split into 071 and 081. Now, dialling 0011 44 1 7D results in the following recorded message. The area code of the number you have dialled has been changed from 01 to 071 (081). Please dial 0011 44 71 (81) followed by the wanted number. The caller is given the 071/081 message as appropriate after the third digit of the local number has been dialled. 603 xxxx was moved to 071, and dialling 0011 44 81 603 xxxx also is diverted to the 071 recording. Oh, by the way, someone asked about USA area code 510. It does not work from Oz yet. Just some more trivia... danny ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 12:32:40 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: The Number You Have Reached... While playing with my latest techo-toy (a marine VHF handheld) I overheard somebody attempting to place a call via the local marine operator (perfectly legal, to the best of my knowledge; this isn't cellular, or even cordless). He gave the operator the number he wanted. Then I heard the number being touch-toned, and then, "La-Dee-DAH! The number you have reached, xxx-xxxx i ..." I have attempted to represent as best as I can in ascii the sound of the operator hanging up in the middle of the word "is". Then the operator asked the calling party to repeat the number he wanted (which did indeed match the xxx-xxxx in the intercept message) and told him that the number "doesn't exist" (yes, that's the phrase the operator used). The problem is that the operator never listened to the complete message, just enough to get the number. Did she have some way of knowing what the rest of the message was going to be without having to listen to it, or did she just make a data-free guess? It could have been "is no longer is service", "is currently being checked for trouble", "has been changed ...", or any of a number of alternatives which don't correspond very well to "doesn't exist". Of course the number exists, it just may not be bound to anything useful! [Moderator's Note: She was just guessing at it, and wasting everyone's time, including her own. It might well have given a referral elsewhere for all she knew. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 18:02:41 GMT In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: > I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent > user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, > they will bill you through your local phone company. If you have a real Sprint account (FONCARD and the works) instead of an equal-access account Sprint bills you directly anyways. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 31 Aug 90 22:45:04 GMT Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg In article <11463@accuvax.nwu.edu> rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: >[stuff about calling home, and Mom says "Do you want me to call you back?"...] >If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and >answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX." Because of the >"Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call. According to the insert in my phone bill, and as reported in this forum, (and as confirmed by MCI customer service), MCI's Around Town Feature no longer lets you make a call for less than "two bits". Previously, Around Town meant *no* surcharge on *any* card calls *from* any phone in your local calling area, which apparrently was too good a deal for MCI to continue. Now, however, it means that there is only a 25 cent surcharge in addition to normal calling rates, rather than the 75 cent normal surcharge for using the calling card, when making a *local* call from any telephone in your local calling area. Making a long distance, out of state call from any phone (even your home phone) with the calling card still results in a 75 cent surcharge. So, unfortunately, you will have to pay more than two bits, not less, to phone home. I just wanted to keep everyone straight on MCI rates (assuming I'm keeping myself straight). Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment Date: 31 Aug 90 18:34:47 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11530@accuvax.nwu.edu>, decwrl!apple!well.sf.ca.us! well!stv@uunet.uu.net (Steve Vance) writes: > Does anyone know where I can buy a couple of these desk stations The generic answer to where do you find some old telecom thing is to look in the trade magazine for that industry that caters to buying and selling new/used gear. You will see occasional ads in the equivalent computer magazines, or in data or telecom mags, but for a magazine of over 100 pages of little else but ads for new/used/whatever telecom stuff you want "Telecom Gear". Many of the companies selling there DO NOT WANT to do retail sales to end users/hackers, but others could care less who they sell to. It is reasonable to be a data or alarm wiring type who is just doing a job and has this customer request that lets him break into some interconnect work which should lead to more, etc. Any reasonable line that makes you 'trade' but explains any 'stupid' questions should get you by with the used gear dealers. "Telecom Gear" bills itself as "The Market Place to Buy & Sell Telecom Gear". Yuo m i g h t be able to get a single comp copy to 'see if you want to subscribe', but you WILL LOVE IT, SO SUBSCRIBE! Try their 800 # for ads, rather than paying to call them. 800 322 5156 ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Octothorpes Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:19:02 GMT In article <11513@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeremy Grodberg writes: >I have also heard (and continue to use) "hook" for "?", and "hash" for >"#". In the internationally accepted notation for music, the octothorp is also known as a "sharp" symbol, the opposite of flat. If one is seeking a good monosyllabic utterance for the octothorpe, I suggest "sharp". Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #611 ****************************** ISSUE 610-611 WERE DELAYED GOING OUT. ISSUE 612, FOLLOWED BY THREE SPECIAL ISSUES COMES FIRST. GO BACK FOUR ISSUES TO SEE 612. THE ORDER THEY APPEAR HERE IS 612, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, 610, 611. ISSUE 613 WILL COME NEXT. (HOPEFULLY)   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05317; 2 Sep 90 1:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01784; 2 Sep 90 0:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05176; 1 Sep 90 23:09 CDT Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 23:02:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #613 BCC: Message-ID: <9009012302.ab01781@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Sep 90 23:01:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 613 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Happy Anniversary to Emma Nutt and Associates [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Automated Collect Calling [Tad Cook] Color Codes (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book) [William Degnan] Gummit Paranoia [Robert Savery] Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Barton F. Bruce] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Jeff Crilly] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Randal Schwartz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 19:16 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Happy Anniversary to Emma Nutt and Associates Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL It seems appropriate that members of this forum recognize that today, September 1, was the day in 1878 that Emma Nutt became the first "telephone operator" as recorded in Bell annals. Prior to that time, the telephone industry had suffered a real problem in that its labor practices of having young boys work in sweatshop conditions (as was commonplace in that era) was a real customer service problem. It seems that the "phone business" hadn't really as yet gotten its act together about servicing customers, and that foul language to the telephone exchange was more the order of the day. With what amounted to a Victorian-era stroke of management genius, the manager at the Boston (or was it New Haven?) exchange employed young Miss Emma Nutt to make the customers talk to a female, a class of person who in that point in history NO male would DARE utter foul words to. The improvement in customer relations and reduction of delay in work attributed to placing courtesy on the telephone was supposed to have been nothing short of incredible. And, we know of course that it began a legendary era of the female telephone operator. Miss Nutt must have done something very right. Perhaps some enterprising institution will honor her name in an appropriate field of today's telecommunications education by establishing a Nutt Fellowship or a Nutt Chair. [Moderator's Note: Perhaps if the educational institution had a rule that all freshman students had to live on campus, a dormitory could be named for her; i.e. Nutt House. Even though Emma's gender and class did indeed cut down the profanity, the Victorian era was not without its kinky people; the earliest obscene call noted in ancient AT&T records occurred in 1879, when a female subscriber complained that a man, whose identity was unknown to her made lewd propositions over the telephone. A police investigation was unable to resolve the matter. After the Victorian era ended, subscribers were as ornery as ever: The front cover of the 1921 alphabetical directory for the Chicago Telephone Company (predecessor to IBT) printed this admonition to subscribers: "Subscribers are requested to address our operators using the same courteous language they expect to hear in response. Our operators do not use profane language or curses, and do not wish to have it spoken to them." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling Date: 30 Aug 90 20:56:10 GMT > My freshman year of college, when I was poor and not yet employed by > Columbia (who is not speaking for me now, by the way! DISCLAIMER!) I > used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and > call me right back. > Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator, > not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'" > There is an interesting code that some ham radio operators have used. When you need to alert someone to meet you on the air, you call for a phoney name that rhymes with the "band" that you wish to meet on. 80 = Katy 40 = Morty 20 = Benny 15 = Christine 10 = Ken Then when the called party says "Benny isn't here", you leave a message that (your name) called, and to have Benny call you back at extension 212. Since the 20 meter band is on 14 MHz, this tells the called party to look for you on a frequency of 14.212 MHz. Not legal, but ... it works! Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 13:22:56 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Color Codes (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book) In a message of annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu writes: >Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal >Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch down >on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables? Sure. I've got a half a dozen USOC books on the shelf, but what you _say_ you want won't be in them. Here is a diagram of a typical block. An article I saw in one of the trade magazines recently actually called one of the colors "grey". Folks who don't know that much, shouldn't own a punch-down tool. The color is "slate". Promise me that if you need help, you'll call a professional. Don't mess with anything you can't afford to replace. [Our moderator asked me to reformat this chart prior to publication. Normally, you would expect to see this information in a single column. -- wd] COLOR COLOR COLOR 26 W-BL 36 BK-BL 46 V-BL 1 BL-W 11 BL-BL 21 BL-V 27 W-O 37 BK-O 47 V-O 2 O-W 12 O-BK 22 O-V 28 W-G 38 BK-G 48 V-G 3 G-W 13 G-BK 23 G-V 29 W-BR 39 BK-BR 49 V-BR 4 BR-W 14 BR-BK 24 BR-V 30 W-S 40 BK-S 50 V-S 5 S-W 15 S-BK 25 S-V > > 31 R-BL 41 Y-BL 6 BL-R 16 BK-Y 32 R-O 42 Y-O 7 O-R 17 O-Y 33 R-G 43 Y-G 8 G-R 18 G-Y 34 R-BR 44 Y-BR 9 BR-R 19 BR-Y 35 R-S 45 Y-SL 10 S-R 20 SL-Y > > 36 BK-BL 11 BL-BL 37 BK-O 12 O-BK 38 BK-G 13 G-BK 39 BK-BR 14 BR-BK 40 BK-S 15 S-BK > 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!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:47:41 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Gummit Paranoia Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <14 Aug 90 18:16:22>, John Higdon (1:30102/2) writes: [ Los Gatos Police story deleted to save space ] JH> From the way things are going these days, my challenge to the officer JH> would now result in my arrest. You could be in real trouble if the officer's brother-in-law happens to work for GTE !! ;-) See Ya!! Bob [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: Not only GTE. I hear Sprint also has a warrant out for his capture, dead or alive. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Date: 31 Aug 90 02:49:45 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11423@accuvax.nwu.edu>, joymrmn!root@uunet.uu.net (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to > allow direct dialled international is allowed. Apparently the SL-1 I can't help you with an SL-1's programming, but I will tell you what I do with a Mitel SX-200, and it may help. Before you pick the trunk group to use, you must look at more digits! Consider: 011+ is for direct dialed with NO operator assistance 01+ is for direct dialed WITH operator assistance (the next digit must obviously test NOT a 1) 00 is just to reach the IXC operator In your environment, you want to route the first onto your regular trunks for pricing by your own call accounting machine, but the last two MUST go to HOBIC trunks. For customer sanity, and to keep existing instructions on phones valid, it is often simplest to simply treat 8+ and 9+ identically, and YOU do the route selection based on what else is dialed. The smart exception to 8+ = 9+ is to treat 9+11 as a panicked 9+911, and allow both those and 8+911 from ANY phone reguardless of how otherwise restricted. That includes maid's closets, elevator, lobby house phones, pool area phones and phones that can't even terminate an incoming call. The other reasonable option is to totally DUMP hobic! and get 'screening 94' or whatever they call it where you are. This says allow 0+ on the trunk, but NOTHING gets billed back to the property. Obviously CC, 3rd party, collect, and free calls are about all that get through. You can have this on a regular trunk where 1+ (that your accounting box can price) can go anywhere. The HOBIC folks won't allow you to keep HOBIC if you are also using screening. All you have lost is 'bill-to-the-room' operator handled services. Your call accounting probably posts to the room's bill automatically, HOBIC may, but often is a manual posting pain - worth losing. At 200 rooms, why don't you have T1 into some IXC's POP for some serious low cost service? The following is a more general comment on carrier access from hotels, hospitals, prisons, school dorms, nursing homes, timeshare condos, etc. For fairness to all CC users, it would be 'nice' to allow 10xxx0+ routing, but a hotel clearly wants to prohibit 10xxx1+ because they are reselling those calls and MUST control what carrier is used. What would solve lots of problems would be for the LEC to offer a class of screening where 10xxx routing would only work for 0+ calls and they would also be subject to the 'bill elsewhere' restrictions currently provided by 'screening 94' or whatever it is. Any call would be valid as 1+ traffic to the default carrier on the same trunks. This does eliminate requests for AT&T to provide feature group B (950 type) access for their card users in non-AT&T hotels, and also helps stamp out feature group B trunks in general. If you like the idea, tell 1) your LEC, 2) your DPU, 3) your Senators, and 4) your IXCs. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Crilly N6ZFX Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Organization: AMIX Corporation, Palo Alto, CA Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:39:25 GMT In article <11017@accuvax.nwu.edu> radius!lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 4 of 9 >john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >>John R. Covert writes: >>> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device >>> enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for >>> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison >>> with fines of up to $2,500. >>...what about continuously tuned radios? >>> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless >>> phone call is another cordless phone? >Don't these people realize that there are many, many people who >already own scanners which can pick up most cordless phone frequencies >(usually around 49 MHz)? Will that make the sale and possession of >scanners illegal as well? I couldn't resist putting my $2 E-10 in. This story is second hand. Apparantly someone "overheard" drug deals on their cordless baby monitor. So they called the police. The police showed up and checked the neighbors, and sure enough, they found the dealer. They arrested him. This happened a few years ago in Spokane, Washington. I wonder if the dealer went to jail. If this incident happened in California today, and the person with the baby monitor called the police, the baby monitor would be confiscated and they would be arrested ;^). I can't beleive California is gonna try to implement such a law. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Don't they realize that everyone (including drug dealers) already know that you can monitor cordless phone calls from another handset? Does this mean that when my handset rings and I pick it up only to find out that my neighbor got a call and I now hear the conversation, that I must turn myself in with the hope that I can get a light prison sentence because it wasn't intentional? Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX) AMIX Corporation 2345 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 jeff@amix.com, {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 07:26:07 GMT In article <11589@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wagner@utoday (Mitch Wagner) writes: | I notice most people have just their first name, or even just "You | have reached 555-1212." This is, I think, so people don't give out | information that can be used to take advantage of them. | But, what information is that? "Gosh, you know my full name! Here's my | car keys!" Is there an actual reason for withholding this information? | Or is it just one of those paranoid, half-baked Krimestopper Tips that | makes just enough sense on he surface to keep people from questioning | it? Presume I'm a bad guy (I've been called that before, but you probably shouldn't know that :-). I am calling my friend. I misdial. I hear your message. If you're female, and I'm into harrassing, I wanna know what number I dialed so I can look it up again, and harrass you later when you are home (sexist comment intended ... there are probably other combinations too). If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can look up your address in the book, and rob you. Basically, if I've looked you up in the book in the first place (or I'm already in an ongoing interaction with you), I *know* who I've called, so your message should just confirm it (with the minimum information possible). If I *don't* know who I've called, there's no point in filling me in, from a security standpoint. (Are there any other uses for ID besides these two? Write me if there are ... I'm trying to keep up on pop security issues.) Just another security weenie, 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #613 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07170; 2 Sep 90 2:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09003; 2 Sep 90 1:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01784; 2 Sep 90 0:13 CDT Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 0:01:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #614 BCC: Message-ID: <9009020001.ab06508@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Sep 90 00:01:17 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 614 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available [James Van Houten] Caller ID Display Wanted [David O'Heare] Survey: Is This Product Needed, Wanted? [Frank Merrow] Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Patrick Humphrey] 38.4 Modems: Myth? [Jean-Francois Lamy] Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Jeff Crilly] Re: Octothorpes [Clive Carmock] Re: Trying to Fix Old Phone [John Higdon] Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Rich Kulawiec] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 11:43:12 EDT From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU I think this will catch the attention of many. Bell Atlantic Business Supplies is marketing a device called "CLASSMATE". It is a device that plugs has a RJ-11 and a DB-25 connector on it. It converts CallerID to Your serial port. It comes with some software that allows you to hook the output of the box to your favorite database (or other application program.). The device is priced at about $49.00 and will be shipped in about two to three weeks. Judging by the usefulness of this unit I would order early... Note for the PROGRAMMER: Please let me know about the interesting software you write for this GEM!! James Van Houten POTS (301) 507-9191 ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Caller ID Display Wanted Date: 31 Aug 90 16:55:02 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth Does anybody out there have suggestions for a Caller ID display device (besides the Bell-supplied Maestro phone) for use in Canada? I'd prefer a printer, or something with an RS-232 output, but I'll gladly accept schematics, suggestions for kit suppliers, whatever. Reply via e-mail and I'll summarize. I've been told that the boxes sold for use in the USA do not work properly with the Caller ID info that Bell Canada provides. Can anybody authoritatively confirm or deny this? The Hello Direct operator told me that they did indeed have a display that would *work* in Canada, but they will not *ship* to a Canadian address ... Sigh. Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 1255 Emperor Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 8C4 CANADA [Moderator's Note: Remember, a new mailing list, specifically for Caller*ID discussion is now available. To be added to the mailing list, write to the list maintainer, Dennis G. Rears. The maintainence address is: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. To make comments to the list write to: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:19:30 PDT From: Frank Merrow Subject: Survey: Is This Product Needed, Wanted? I have long wanted to get a "computer readable" version of my phone bill from the phone company. They only offer a very expensive nine track tape option and that only to "business customers". Not only do they ignore residental customers, but the format and cost are so high they keep many small companies with a "few PCs" from getting the service as well. I have an idea for a fairly inexpensive piece of equipment that could probably support 5,000 to 10,000 customers a month and cost only about $100,000 to build. If the phone company only charges $10 per customer for the service they will get all their money back in a couple months. What I need to know is how many people out there would really be interested in such a service from the phone company. I would, and I believe I am not alone. I want to write up a little "questionairre" and send it out just to "ca" (I only want to cover the PacBell area for now). The questionaire would have a description of the service (a little more than I have given you here) and then questions like: Would you pay $10 a month for this service? How concerned would you be if a copy of your bill was decoded by another user on a public network? Would you be will to release the phone company from such a liability, and so on. What do you think the proper forum for such a question are should be? If professionally done, would you be willing to release it here in TELECOM Digest? Frank uunet!odetics!frank [Moderator's Note: Why don't you write your questionairre and send it to the folks who respond to your posting here? Not all will be from California of course, but by getting an idea of the general level of interest, you can make some reasonable assumptions about your target area. Then, send the results when you have tallied them. Readers who wish to participate should write to Frank: uunet!odetics!frank. PAT] ------------------------------ From: patrickh@rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? Reply-To: patrickh@uncle-bens.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 07:24:48 GMT In article <11565@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 610, Message 6 of 11 >Here are some comments which I wrote with the international readers in >mind. They apply to country code 1. >The present area codes are of the form N0X and N1X (where N is any >single digit except 0 or 1, and X is any single digit INCLUDING 0 and >1), and were (according to my readings of Telecom) originally laid out >so that N0X was assigned to states/provinces having only one area >code, and N1X was assigned to states/provinces having more than one >area code. (The area codes were given out both to states of the U.S. >and to provinces of Canada.) A lot of area codes have been created >since then, but you still find that: >If a state/province has one area code, it's N0X (this is NO LONGER >true the other way around); N1X is in a state/province having more >than one area code (but N0X now occurs in some states having more than >one area code). It never was arranged that way. Kentucky has always been split between 502 and 606, Texas has always had 806 (with five N1Xs at the time), Oklahoma has always been 405 and 918, and Nebraska has always had 402 and 308. (Washington has always been split between 206 and 509, as well.) "Always" in this instance means at the time of the NPA assignments being made in 1954. The NPA assignments were made seemingly on consideration of how long the NPA would take to be dialed, since that was of concern in an age where pulse dialing was the only kind available. The reasoning was that the areas with large numbers of calls should get the NPA numbers that could be dialed the quickest -- hence New York City got 212, Los Angeles 213, Chicago 312, Detroit 313, and so forth. Patrick L. Humphrey (patrickh@rice.edu) Networking & Computing Systems Rice University, Houston, Texas My opinion is not that of Rice, except this one: BEAT THE *&$#! OUTTA TEXAS! ------------------------------ From: lamy@sobeco.com (Jean-Francois Lamy) Subject: 38.4 Modems: Myth? Organization: Sobeco Group - Montreal, Canada Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 13:02:51 GMT I'm staring at an ad in {Communications Week} about the Motorola UDS FastTalk V.32/42b modem that is claimed to provide throughputs of up to 38.4. We have an application currently using stat muxes over a leased digital 19.2 line that we'd like to move to TCP/IP, and compressed SL/IP (or PPP) seem like good candidates for the application. We suspect however that the additional demand created by the added functionality and extra overhead will spell the death of the 19.2 connection. Leasing 56kbps lines in Canada is outrageously expensive (8000$ a month), and we don't have enough voice traffic either to justify going to fractional T1. We've seen boxes at 7000$ each that do quite a good job muxing data from four channels at 38.4, compressing down to a 19.2 sync link -- we're using only one channel at 38.4. Sending pre-compressed data, however, reduces actual throughput to close to the line capacity, as one might expect (fortunately the unit does not actually degrade in those cases). But 14000$ for 2 units, plus the cost of modems and the line is a bit much. We need sustainable 19.2 at the very minimum, and more the better. Has anyone tried the Motorola UDS FastTalk V.32/V.42b and seen whether the unit will -- - maintain 19.2 in the presence of pre-compressed (meaning compress(1) Lempel- Ziv) data such as a bozo transferring a tape over a serial line, or will it sink down to its "native" 9600bps? - achieve anything close to 38.4 doing SLIP or PPP. (Where what is flying by are either very short packets (2-10 chars) or short packets (we'd be keeping our MTU size down to keep echo latency down). I will summarize replies mailed to me. Vendor plugs welcome too, to my e-mailbox, that is. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@sobeco.com, uunet!sobeco!lamy Groupe Sobeco, 505 ouest, bd Rene-Levesque, Montreal Canada H2Z 1Y7 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Crilly N6ZFX Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Organization: AMIX Corporation, Palo Alto, CA Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:43:36 GMT In article <11018@accuvax.nwu.edu> faunt@cisco.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 5 of 9 >>By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of >>receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast >>transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it >>won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. >In Germany, the ICOM R1, which is a receiver with a range of 100kHz to >1300MHZ (in most places), is sold with a VERY restricted range, 13.95 >to 14.5MHz, 28-29MHz, 144-146MHz, 430-440MHz, and 1240-1300MHz. These >are basically some ham bands. It's pretty clear that the Germans >don't want their citizens listening to anything but hams and >broadcasts. Because of "production and distribution problems" (ICOM's reason) you can't even buy an R1 in the U.S. Some people argue that it ICOM is holding back because of the 800 mhz coverage and legal hassles of selling such a device that covers cellular frequencies. Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX) AMIX Corporation 2345 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 jeff@amix.com, {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff ------------------------------ From: Clive Carmock Subject: Re: Octothorpes Date: 1 Sep 90 13:25:52 GMT Reply-To: Clive Carmock Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom announcements on System X exchanges call it 'SQUARE'. When I was recently talking to a BT operator (I could get on of the star services to work) I assumed that 'SQUARE' was the BT word for it, so that was the term I used, only to confuse the operator, who asked me to describe the symbol. This I duly did, and she said 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever calls it SQUARE'. That being the case, you would think that BT would change their announcements. I have heard some PABX units with synthesised speech call it 'GATE'. Clive Carmock ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Trying to Fix Old Phone Date: 1 Sep 90 11:01:03 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Lord High Everything Else writes: > I have a telephone that I'm trying to fix. The dictionary > identifies it as a "300" model telephone. We last used it in 1976 and > it worked fine then. Now, when I plug it in I can dial out; it will > ring when we receive a call and I can answer the call and here the > other party's voice; but when I try to talk, it won't transmit my > voice. If you have cleared the transmitter itself, and the phone will seize the line when off-hook, then look for a short in the handset transmitter "pair". There are three wires going to the handset (vs four in a 500 series phone) and one of them is common to both receiver and transmitter. The other possiblity is a defective network. One of the neat things about a 300 set is that when you disconnect the transmitter (unscrew the cap and take it out), the network releases the line, but you can monitor perfectly through the receiver. If you remove the transmitter and the call stays up, then the transmitter circuit is shorted or something else is screwy. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 19:31:50 MDT From: Rich Kulawiec Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying In article <11351@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >The right to privacy in email or on the telephone >means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a >mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*. I disagree, at least in the case of computer systems. Below is a copy of memorandum that appear at PRIVACY@RUTGERS a few years ago and was forwarded to me by Dave Curry (then of the Purdue Engineering Computer Network). This memo is a preliminary attempt to assess the impact of the ECPA, and contains the comment that clarification of the intent and scope of the ECPA will probably be determined in the courts; my guess is that the Epson class action lawsuit might be one of the cases which does exactly that. BEGIN MEMORANDUM To: The MIT Community From: James D. Bruce, Vice President for Information Systems Re: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was enacted by the United States Congress in October of last year to protect the privacy of users of wire and electronic communications. Legal counsel has advised MIT that its computer network and the files stored on its computers are covered by the law's provisions. Specifically, individuals who access electronic files without appropriate authorization could find themselves subject to criminal penalties under this new law. At this time, we can only make broad generalizations about the impact of the Act on MIT's computing environment. Its actual scope will develop as federal actions are brought against individuals who are charged with inappropriate access to electronic mail and other electronic files. It is clear, however, that under the Act, an individual who, without authorization, accesses an electronic mail queue is liable and may be subject to a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in prison, if charged and convicted. Penalties are higher if the objective is malicious destruction or damage of information, or private gain. The law also bars unauthorized disclosure of information within an electronic mail system by the provider of the service. This bars MIT (and other providers) from disclosing information from an individual's electronic data files without authorization from the individual. MIT students and staff should be aware that it is against Institute policy and federal law to access the private files of others without authorization. MIT employees should also note that they are personally liable under the Act if they exceed their authorization to access electronic files. END MEMORANDUM Based on my own reading of the ECPA, this memo, and other discussions (some of which appeared in TELECOM), I've formulated a policy which is used here [Colorado State CS Dept.; I'm the systems manager]. We will access the "envelope" of a mail message if necessary to see that it's delivered correctly, but not the "body". This is possible when using Unix sendmail because enqueued messages in the process of delivery are stored as two separate files, one of which contains the message itself, the other of which contains information such as the sender, recipient(s), etc.. This information is publicly accessible by use of the "mailq" command or by examination of the publicly-readable logs written by sendmail; it seems to me to be reasonable for us to rewrite it when necessary to ensure delivery of messages. (I would compare this to the US Postal Service's use of forwarding stickers to ensure delivery of paper mail.) But we will not access the contents of a mail message whether it's enqueued or has actually been delivered. Rich Kulawiec ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #614 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25738; 3 Sep 90 2:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29975; 3 Sep 90 0:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19112; 2 Sep 90 23:23 CDT Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 22:47:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #615 BCC: Message-ID: <9009022247.ab00435@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Sep 90 22:47:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 615 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Labor Day, 1990 [TELECOM Moderator] Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [Coloradoan via R. Kulawiec] Re: Octothorpes [David M. Archer] Re: Octothorpes [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available [James Van Houten] Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available [Gilbert A. Amine] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [C. Jackson] Re: Gummit Paranoia [John Higdon] The Meaning of COCOT [Greg Montgomery] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 21:52:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Labor Day, 1990 Labor Day is a good time to stop and reflect on the years of labor by the men and women in the telephone industry in America who have made the network what it is today. Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the world. For that, we can thank the telephone workers, and we should pay tribute to them today, along with all workers, for their contributions to our nation. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 09:04:29 MDT From: Rich Kulawiec Subject: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market Excerpts from an article in the {Fort Collins Coloradoan}, Sunday 8/26/90: Duo Develops Phone Device - Owner can Choose Calls to Receive by J. Lewandowski No one should ever be bugged by nuisance phone calls, two Fort Collins businessmen believe. So Rob Day and Andy May are convinced people will pay $200 to stop unwanted calls. The two Fort Collins businessmen wlil soon be selling an answering machine-sized device that can stop incoming calls. They're so confident in their product that they expect to sell 500,000 of the electronic machines during the next twelve months. [...] The product, called Tess, plugs into into the phone just like an answering machine. It prevents the phone from ringing and only lets calls through from people you might wnat to talk to. Tess is an acronym for Telephone Exclusion Screening System. [...] Tess works like this: Users enter phone numbers from whom they'll accept calls -- up to 25 numbers can be programmed. The machine answers before the phone rings and asks the called to enter their number. If the machine doesn't recognize the number, a recorded message asks the caller to try again later. Approved numbers allow the phone to ring. [...] Telesync [the company the pair have formed] is now signing up a variety of national marketing companies to sell the product nationwide. And in what could be considered a case of entrepeneurial cannibalism, the bulk of sales in the first year will be done by -- get this -- telemarketing companies. "They'll call up and say 'how would you like this to be the last phone call at dinner you ever need to answer?'" May said. [...] -- end excerpts, begin comments -- There are a number of obvious problems with this system, and a few that aren't clear, at least from the text of the article. The caller's "number" isn't specified. Is it their phone number, or is it a unique N-digit number that must be told to each caller? If it's their phone number, then it could perhaps be deduced by someone with knowledge of the personal relationships involved, allowing an unauthorized person access. If it's only a few digits, then it could be found by trial and error. That deals with the problem of unauthorized folks gaining access; but what about folks who should be authorized but can't get in? The police and fire departments, for instance; the person who found your lost dog and is calling the number on the tag; a friend you haven't heard from in a while, etc. And with only 25 storable numbers, it seems like it would quickly be necessary to start giving multiple people the same number. Finally, their use of telemarketers to sell the device is one of the sleaziest tactics I've seen yet; it's reminiscent of the street types in certain large cities who run up to cars stopped at intersections and throw mud on the windshields -- and then offer to wash the car for a fee. Rsk [Moderator's Note: You'd have the device on your public, listed line. Your animal's tags would show your non-pub private number. And since this new device apparently does not distinquish one number from another, except that either it is listed in the table or not, you'd just program one number, i.e. 12345, and let it be known to the people you want calling your public number to insert that sequence on answer. If instead of merely saying 'call later' this device would transfer the call to an answering machine, that would be the best arrangement of all. This isn't really a new idea. A company called International Mobile Machines of Bala Cynwyd, PA had a similar product on the market about ten years ago. Why it did not become more popular, I do not know. Their model shunted unwanted calls to an answering machine. I bought one, then later sold it to a friend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David M Archer Subject: Re: Octothorpes Date: 2 Sep 90 05:55:58 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu In article <11627@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cca@cs.exeter.ac.uk (Clive Carmock) writes... >On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom announcements >symbol. This I duly did, and she said 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever >calls it SQUARE'. That being the case, you would think that BT would >synthesised speech call it 'GATE'. I'm surpised that no-one's ever mentioned "that little tic-tac-toe button" yet. I mean, that's what >I< always have to call it when trying to get people to know what I mean. (And in my experience, you can pretty much forget about "asterisk", I've had to call it the star button.) After all, not everyone who uses a phone is as technically orientated as I assume the people who read this group are. I sometimes wonder if they should have just called those buttons A&B. I know about the "extra" 4 keys A-D, but they could have given those keys the "weird" symbols instead, considering that a normal phone isn't supposed to have them. I guess we can be thankfull they didn't label them with '&' and '~'. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 13:51 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Octothorpes Clive writes (in Digest V10,Iss614): >On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom >announcements on System X exchanges call it 'SQUARE'... recently >talking to a BT operator that was the term I used, only to confuse >the operator, and she said, 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever calls it >SQUARE'. And so we see how Telcos on both sides of the Atlantic confuse their public with non-standard 'meta-jargon.' Also: >I have heard some PABX units with synthesised speech call it 'GATE'. Seems to sort of show how little the vast majority understands or attempts to take benefit from the work of the CCITT, I guess. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 10:28:12 EDT From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU I forgot to include the 800 Number for Bell Atlantic Business Supplies. It is 1-800-523-0552. This might be helpful!! Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 18:35 EST From: Rochelle Communications <0004169820@mcimail.com> Subject: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available In a message dated September 2, 1990, James Van Houten writes: >Bell Atlantic Business Supplies is marketing a device called "CLASSMATE". >It is a device that plugs into an RJ-11 and has a DB-25 connector on it. It > converts Caller ID to your serial port. I just want to bring to the attention of interested developers, that this is not the first product on the market that demodulates Caller ID and provides a computer interface. My company, Rochelle Communications, have announced such a product some time ago. It has several features that CLASSMATE lacks: 1) a ring detect indication, 2) a on-hook / off-hook monitor (so that the PC can determine whether the incoming call has been answered, and if so track its duration), and 3) it is compatible with both US and Canadian implementations of Caller ID. Rochelle will also provide extensive support for serious software developers and systems integrators (Caller ID simulator, software drivers, and direct technical support). Our ANI-232 has also undergone extensive modem testing and received high marks from a leading independent testing organization. Rochelle has also developed an end-user product, Caller ID+Plus, which adds a memory resident software package to the ANI-232. Caller ID+Plus is a contact management system ideally suited for small businesses and home office professionals. Interested parties, please contact us at: +1 512 794 0088 or e-mail at gamine@mcimail.com Gilbert A. Amine Rochelle Communications, Inc. Austin, Texas ------------------------------ From: Craig Jackson drilex1 Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 2 Sep 90 02:39:44 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In article <11470@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 605, Message 8 of 10 >In article <11444@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mje99!mje@gargoyle.uchicago.edu >(Mark J Elkins) writes... >>As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem >>use. His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is >>about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends). >>When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some >>manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so >>he was forced to make at least one call a day. They don't like people >>doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which >>costs a lot more per month. >Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this? I've never heard >of a maximum period of time for a phone call. I consulted my phone >book, and the term it uses is untimed. I'd call the customer >representatives once a day and request a credit. After all, my phone >call was interrupted by them, and so their "equipment failure" >required me to make a second phone call. Seems appropriate to me. I >ask about this, because I can quite easily see myself doing something >similiar in the future. Years ago the way to handle play-by-play coverage of a college basketball game, etc was for the radio station (or network) to order a 'radio loop' from the arena to the origination point. This was a dedicated circuit, which was valid during the period of the game. (Typically, it actually was put up the preceding business day.) Around about 1970, the tariffs in Virginia (where I worked at a student radio station) changed so that it became cheaper to have a POTS line installed in the press box, and send the game back via an ordinary long-distance call. (I mean a POTS line installed *just* for the event -- I never saw the tariffs, but this is certainly true.) This use of an ordinary long-distance call was not a subterfuge--the TELCO craft people knew all about it, and I believe that the business office recommended it. The service for the POTS long-distance call was generally just as good as a radio loop offered in the way of bandwidth, etc. However, it came with fewer guarantees. Regular radio loops had their punchdowns marked and other steps to ensure continuous service. One time during a football game, the coverage was interrupted partway through the game. It was restored in just a few minutes. What had happened was that the long-distance call simply dropped during the middle of the broadcast, and had to be re-dialed. Obviously someone was upset, because we found out what had happend. It seemed that this game was coming from some place with older equipment in the frame. After the call had been live for several hours, some part of this equipment was overheating. The person manning the frame noticed the problem, and disconnected the call manually. (Of course, he didn't listen in -- that would be an unnecessary violation of privacy.) So at least in this case, the 'equipment problem' was real. I don't know if any monetary relief was in order due to the interruption. But I'm pretty sure that the TELCO has themselves covered so they don't have to fork out, or forgo charges, when a call runs so long that it causes equipment failure. Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb} ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia Date: 2 Sep 90 14:31:40 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Robert Savery writes: > [ Los Gatos Police story deleted to save space ] > You could be in real trouble if the officer's brother-in-law happens > to work for GTE !! ;-) Chuckle, chuckle. But unfortunately there is more truth to this than most people realize. With the government naivete being what it is, all it takes these days is to get some agency with clout and a security force pissed off at you and you will shortly find Federal agents at your door with a search warrant. I have seen the sworn affidavits for search warrents in association with some current cases of alleged Federal "felonies and misdemeanors" and they are downright laughable. Using language that is reminiscent of that used by "Kingfish" in "Amos 'n Andy", a telco "special agent" will flim-flam reasons why the warrant should be granted. To make it sound more impressive and sinister, buttsets are described as "telephone eavesdropping and monitoring equipment" and PCs are described as "equipment that can receive, transmit, and modify data". A judge takes one look at this and immediatly grants the warrant. While it is unlikely that any of this would stand up in court (a la Neidorf), the "aggrieved" agency will have accomplished its revenge through the search and siezure and indictment alone. By the time this has happened, a person's livelyhood is damaged or destroyed, his financial resources are exhausted (through defense of the charges), and his reputation has been made questionable. Trust me; this is not "hacker paranoia". I have now seen how this works for myself (fortunately from the sidelines) and have what can best be described as some well-founded concerns. > [Moderator's Note: Not only GTE. I hear Sprint also has a warrant out > for his capture, dead or alive. :) PAT] Yeah? Well, I don't remember cutting Pac*Bell any slack, either. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: The Meaning of COCOT From: Greg Montgomery Date: Sun, 02 Sep 90 17:44:34 EDT Organization: Montgomery Consultants, Inc. I have been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I see many messages with stuff about COCOTs in them, but I can't figure out what one is ... Would someone please tell me what a COCOT is? Thanks. Greg Montgomery Internet: greg@turbo.atl.ga.us UUCP (smart): greg@turbo.UUCP UUCP (route): {rutgers,ogcise,gatech}!emory!turbo!greg [Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone. Some say it in reverse. They are the privately owned payphones you see springing up everywhere. A good reference to the many acronyms we use here all the time is found in three glossary files in the Telecom Archives. Look for the files 'glossary.xxxxx' The Telecom Archives is accessed by ftp at lcs.mit.edu. Use regular ftp commands; i.e. login anonymous; give user@site.name for password, then 'cd telecom-archives' and make your selection from the nine years of Digests on line and the many other files of interest. Non-Internet users can access the archives via the archives mail server: bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #615 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26828; 3 Sep 90 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00046; 3 Sep 90 1:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29975; 3 Sep 90 0:28 CDT Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:51:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls Part 2 BCC: Message-ID: <9009022351.ab02029@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:50:00 CDT PBX Blocking 10xxx - Part 2 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:05:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2 This is another topic which really created an overflow of messages in recent days. A special issue was put out a couple days ago on this topic. While it was in distribution, some additional messages arrived; then the comments in the special issue itself brought some additional rebuttal from readers. Here, greatly edited in order to get in as much as possible are some final comments on the topic of 10xxx blocking. PT --------------------- From: John Higdon On Aug 31 at 22:39, TELECOM Moderator writes: > But show me where > in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some > far-away country? PAT] In the 16 or so years I have consulted with this company, NO ONE has had that need. If it ever happens, the attendant can place the call. After hours, all outside calls are blocked anyway. > [Moderator's Note: You do not consider it illegal or unethical for a > PBX to have 10xxx blocked, but do you consider it *stupid* for them to > do so? If they want employees to pay for their personal calls, why not > allow 10xxx so that the employee can put it on his AT&T Card or Sprint > Card if desired? PAT] If employees want to make personal calls and pay for them, I allow 0+ (goes on AT&T by the switch appending 10288), 800 (Sprint F(O)ON Card), and 950. That pretty well covers the ground for alternate billing, no? What can you do with 10XXX in the world of alternate billing that cannot be done with 800, 950, and 0+? > And if > you are giving the use of the phone to your employees as a fringe > benefit, then that would sort of be tantamount to selling the service, > no? If the slaves don't provide you with their labor, they won't have > a desk to sit at any longer to make calls. But wait a another minute. From Campbell to Stockton (70 miles) calls are a rip. But there is an FX available. So when someone dials a number in Stockton, the switch selects what amounts to a local route. What you are saying is that the proprietor must allow the all deserving employee the opportunity to derail the tables and cause the call to go full toll on someone's network. No employer can be expected to be that generous (or stupid). > [Moderator's Note: Are you saying that if someone using the phone in > an AT&T office dials 9 (or whatever for an outside line) that New York > Telephone blocks 10xxx access at that point? Or is the 9-level call > completely processed internally before the switch ever lets it out of > the system and into NYT's hands? On an automatic routing PBX, you dial 9 for "outside" not for an "outside line". In fact, technically "9" means "give me ARS". A dial tone from the switch itself then says, "ARS ready". Then you dial your number. In full-blown ARS, the PBX switch does not even select a trunk until the user dials the complete number. Then and only then, it checks the full and complete number against the ARS programming. Based on the match, the switch selects a trunk and outpulses the entire number as well as any access or accounting codes required. It is no problem at all to obtain LD service that will receive a number appended on the end of the called number that identifies the extension. I even have some numbers fully modified before retransmission (such as my cellular phone number -- I give the client a phony one and the switch translates it into the correct one, but no can use the number I give outside the office). At no time in a fully automatic routing PBX does the caller dial directly on an outside trunk. So let's turn it around. Am I required to add to the complexity of the ARS by working out the protocol for "allowing" 10XXX calls? > [Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory > assistance in the middle-east somewhere also. For the once-per-century this may be required, I think the attendant wouldn't mind putting the call through. From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. > [Re: AT&T employee phone calls: I can't see why they would want to > use MCI. There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way > around. PAT] It may be an extreme example, but it is real. I would like to clarify: I am not an AT&T employee, but I have spent a significant amount of time consulting for AT&T Bell Laboratories at several locations in New Jersey. The telephone service at the Bell Labs facility in Whippany, NJ, is provided by NJ Bell. It is Centrex service provided by the local 5ESS switch. Important people at the labs get ISDN feature phones, with multiple call-appearances, caller-id display (name and number, on calls within the centrex group, number-only for other intra-lata calls) and AUDIX voice mail coverage. Less important people get 2500 sets with typical centrex features. POTS customers in the Whippany area are served by the same switch, and some use the same prefix (201-386) as the labs centrex group. These customers are given equal access and may use 10xxx to select a carrier on both inter- and intra-lata toll calls. Within the centrex group, however, 9+10xxx is blocked. Inter-lata calls may be made by simply dialing 9 1 aaa ppp nnnn in which case the call is billed to the labs. Calling-card calls may be placed by dialing 9 0 aaa ppp nnnn and then entering an AT&T calling card or Universal Card(sm) number. In this way, personal calls or non-AT&T business calls may be billed to the appropriate party. It is not possible, however, to place such a call on the carrier chosen by the party paying for it, unless that carrier is AT&T (or NJ Bell, for intra-lata toll.) > There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around. PAT] Compare the calling-card rates of AT&T and MCI. That is the only place in the rate structures of these two carriers where there is a significant difference. MCI's calling-card surcharge is approximately 50% of AT&T's surcharge. The Universal Card, with its 10% discount, helps to equalize things if the call duration is such that the 10% off the time-sensitive portion of the cost exceeds the premium paid for the per-call surcharge. But the Universal Card is only offered to individuals, not businesses. The number of non-AT&T business calls I need to make from their premises is small enough that we're talking about only a couple of dollars' worth of savings per month. Not worth making a stink about it. My point, for purposes of this discussion, is that in this case, the party paying for the toll call is not free to choose the carrier he pays. At AT&T locations served by PBXes, they block 10xxx calls within the PBX. At locations served by Centrex, they apparently have the telco do it for them. My original question was: is this legal? I haven't heard any lawyers' opinions on this. Our Moderator says it is not. From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) I know that 10XXX blocking at payphones is illegal, but is it illegal from a PBX at a private business? My employer also blocks 10XXX dialing, but I figured that was their right. A couple of years ago there were a few numbers that I would try to call via AT&T (our carrier at work) and the connection was quite noisey. For fun, I tried using my Sprint 800 access, just letting the other end ring once so I could hear the quality of the connection. The difference was astounding ... much better via Sprint. I would have preferred to put those calls via Sprint, but I suspect that if I had been able to dial 10333 I would have annoyed the folks in accounting. These days it isn't an issue, as voice communications over AT&T seem to be as good as Sprint most of the time. But it would be nice to be able to dial 10XXX. Is it really illegal for a business owner to block this access from a PBX? From: Macy Hallock fmsystm!macy@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, OH A few things to consider in this discussion: - Many PBX's our there just do not understand 10XXX dialing. In the case of the systems I maintain, software installed prior to a certain date (sometime in 1987, I think) did not have modifications to deal with 10XXX properly. North American Dialing Plan did not anticipate the 10XXX function prior to the advent of Equal Access. On many systems, the owner does not wish to spend the money to upgrade to later system software due to the substantial costs involved. Most businesses and hotels do not consider software that does not allow 10XXX to be broken and will not pay to fix something that is not a problem they recognize. In fact, at least two key systems presently on the market do not deal with 10XXX calls properly in their toll restriction feature. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of others. 950-XXXX dialing is often permitted on most systems that are not "table-driven". On "table-driven" Automatic Route Selection PBX's, 950 is often blocked because it is not viewed as a local exchange. (Look in your phone book dialing instructions and see if 950 is mentioned as a dialable local exchange code...) Did you know that there are provisions for ANI on 950-XXXX Feature Group B access trunks for carriers? This means a carrier could bill the caller for 950-XXXX calling without a security code ... rough on hotels ... This is seldom done in practice, but since it is possible, should a hotel block 950 access? - Very few users understand 10XXX dialing, even after having it explained to them in simple terms. Its just not something they are used to thinking about and they do not recognize it as something they "need to know". Ditto for 950-XXXX access. - At least one phone company I know of has stated that 10XXX type calls consistute a miniscule percentage of their calls and takes 10XXX less than seriously. Their surveys show almost all 10XXX and 950-XXXX calls are from automated equipment ... ARS equipped PBX's, OCC dialers and COCOT's. They have accidently wiped out 10XXX access to carriers on occasion and received almost no complaints. In fact, Litel, a regional carrier in Ameritech territory has a continuing problem with having their 10432 access wiped out by GTE in exchanges during GTD-5 database upgrades, with very few complaints about it ... Litel doesn't like it much, though. Note that this problem seems not ot affect their customers with Litel as their selected 1+ carrier, only 10XXX access. I like 10XXX and 950 access. I program nearly all my PBX's to use these codes. Since the phone company views these codes as revenue threatening to their intra-LATA calling traffic, I suspect they have little concern for educating users. Their fears may be well founded, since this is a state that both allows intra-LATA calls to carried by all carriers and the BOC intra-LATA rates are high. I use 10XXX and 950-XXXX to route all my PBX cusotmers' intra-LATA calls through their carrier of choice. From: "Barton F. Bruce" Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. I think there is a simple solution to the 10xxx PBX problem that will solve almost everyone's problems. First some background, though. I certainly sympathise with anyone who wants to use 10xxx access to place a 0+ call they are paying for with their own credit card, or are calling collect or 3rd party billing. I also totally believe that a switch's owner should be able to BLOCK 10xxx access for calls that will be billed to him. I also totally believe that a switch's owner has a serious problem with 0+ calling, because his SMDR call logging/pricing gear has NO idea what is being said to the operator. It could be a request for expensive person-to-person service, it could be verbally changed to a totally different number, or anything else. To cater to operator handled services, but to eliminate any risk of customer call fraud, HOBIC type service has been available to hotels and certain other classes of businesses. The operator KNOWS it is a hotel guest, and knows that time and charges need to be reported back. HOBIC service is provided on special seperate trunks that are generally outgoing ONLY. They are simply NOT available to everyone, are definitely expensive (but not rip-off AOS class expensive), and depend on some place to immediately report back time and charges to. More recently, there has been available another type of service sometimes called 'screening-94'. There are several related offerings, and I am unaware of all the differences there are between them. In some cases the order code only differs by the type of institution served. Curiously school dorms and prisons share the same code! Any local or 1+ calls that can be captured on a call accounting box are allowed, BUT the operator gets a console indication that won't let her take 0+ calls that are billed to that phone number. She is allowed to provide any service as long as it paid for elsewhere. Another version is particularly good for time-share condos, and anyone renting their summer home. This one blocks toll calls unless they are billed elsewhere. In the real world of PBXs there exists a WIDE range of call analysis and routing smarts. What is needed is a simple way for the owner of any PBX, but especially ones catering to customers who will be long gone the next day, to provide 10xxx0+ calling at NO risk, while being able to linit 10xxx1+ dialing to his choice of carrier. This should be able to be acheived without his buying a whole new smarter switch and paying for someone to program it at some unreasonable price. A simple solution, that IMHO solves all the problems, would be for the LEC to provide an enhanced version of the screening that would allow 10xxx0+ calls but flag them to the operator as 'bill-elsewhere-only' (obviously BLOCKING carriers unwilling to provide this service...), and DISALLOW 10xxx1+ calls (the switch owner's equal access choice must stay for calls he pays for). Also, 976 type blocking should work regardless of areacode dialed first, not just in the home NPA. The owner of a fairly smart switch might only use a few of these for 10xxx0+ calls, and retain 10xxx capability for his own use on other trunks, but the owner of a dumb switch would have this on ALL outgoing trunks guests could access. Does anyone see his valid rights/needs trampled on by this? I think it should work. KNOW full well that the hotel industry is lobbying AGAINST 10xxx access, not so much that they insist on selling you service (they may well charge for your placing a credit card call from your room anyway), but simply because they legitimately fear having to BUY and program smarter switches. If they could give you the 10xxx access you want safely on their existing trunks with the LEC solving their problems, many would not object. This also hastens total conversion to feature group-D trunks for the IXCs (because feature group-B 950 traffic will drop), and obviates the need for AT&T to provide 950 access (which they won't do anyway) for AT&T card users stuck in an MCI hotel. BTW, does anyone know all the 'screening 94' class USOC codes and what features they provide? From: Craig Jackson drilex1 Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Why would be *illegal* to block 10xxx in a private PBX? Surely it would be within a business' rights to restrict the long distance carriers used from their phones, which are obviously only used to further company business? (Wasn't the personal-call issue just discussed here?) [Moderator's Note: And there you have it. The consensus seems to be that if subscriber blocking of 10xxx is illegal, it should not be. I think the ideal solution, as noted by one writer above, would be to allow 10xxx in all cases, but force such calls to HOBIC lines. However, as noted before, HOBIC has problems also at times; it is not a perfect solution. Thanks to all who wrote in response. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14154; 4 Sep 90 0:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22784; 3 Sep 90 23:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00573; 3 Sep 90 21:53 CDT Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 21:09:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #616 BCC: Message-ID: <9009032109.ab32100@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Sep 90 21:08:47 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 616 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [John Higdon] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Donald Krapf] Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Ken Crudup] Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [J. Eric Townsend] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Mitch Wagner] Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: Caller*ID to RS-232 Now Available [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Labor Day, 1990 [Jim Breen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Date: 3 Sep 90 01:51:40 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Craig Jackson drilex1 writes: > One time during a football game, the coverage was interrupted partway > through the game. > So at least in this case, the 'equipment problem' was real. I don't > know if any monetary relief was in order due to the interruption. But > I'm pretty sure that the TELCO has themselves covered so they don't > have to fork out, or forgo charges, when a call runs so long that it > causes equipment failure. With the rapidly advancing cost of equalized lines, most broadcasters have been looking to other methods of carrying program material in both temporary and permanent situations. Most radio stations now use 950 MHz equipment to carry program to the transmitter. But for remote broadcasts, there are a number of options. With the advent of frequency agile, wideband 450 MHz equipment, and large number of broadcasters are turning to the airwaves to solve their remote broadcast woes. Unfortunately, in major metro areas the available frequencies for 450 MHz remote use are scarce. Even with coordinating committees, the scramble for channels frightens many away. A semi-popular alternative is to use a dial up telephone line with a "frequency extender". This device operates under the assumption that what makes a phone line sound bad is the lack of low (yes -- low) frequency response. To correct this, the audio channel is shifted up about 500 Hz. That would mean that a tone of 1000 Hz would travel over the phone line as 1500 Hz. It would also mean that a sound occurring around 50 Hz would travel as 550 Hz, well within the response capability of any phone line. There are also multi-line models that split the band up into parts and send 3000 Hz wide "slices" over each line. Obviously, there is appropriate decoding equipment at the receiving end in all cases. I am personally unimpressed by these devices and feel that if a broadcast is going to travel over a dialup line, it might as well go barefoot for all the improvement you get with "frequency extenders". One of my clients just bites the bullet and buys 8 KHz and 15 KHz dedicated lines and builds them into the cost of the remote as billed to the advertiser. A good telco equalized line is still the champ when it comes to quality -- even over wideband 450 MHz equipment. With the amount that they spend with Pac*Bell (they do MANY remotes), they have been provided with a virtually permanent on-site installer. The service with those lines has been VERY reliable and they sound VERY good. Which brings us to the question about telco liability for service interuptions on dialup. Most tariffs call for a credit of one day's worth of the monthly service charge for each day that the service is unusable after the first 24 hours of service loss. So for the lost call, there would be no liability whatsoever. Only if no calls could be made for at least the next 24 hours would there be any remuneration from telco. And that would be minimal. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: His message and your response reminds me of years ago when once a week I would see a very large truck parked in the alley behind Orchestra Hall on Michigan Avenue. The truck was inscribed "Illinois Bell Telephone Co". A large cable coming out the stage door of Orchestra Hall ran into the back of this truck. Then it came out of the truck, and down into a manhole nearby. The weekly broadcast of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to how many ever radio stations carried it started out at that point. This would have been the early 1950's; I was around ten years old, and fascinated by the inside of the truck, and the fellow who worked inside backstage wearing an operator's headset into which it seemed he was constantly talking to someone, somewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Donald Krapf Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Reply-To: Donald Krapf Organization: The Voice of Fate Date: 3 Sep 90 22:36:41 GMT In article <11471@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 605, Message 9 of 10 >Steck Thomas writes: >> voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line. There is no >> true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..) >> like there used to be. >But even on these digital switches, the talk path is interrupted for >the duration of the "beep". In most cases, this is enough for a modem >to consider that there has been carrier loss and to hang up. There may Most modems can be instructed to ingore carrier loss for a brief period. The only problem here is that the modem at each end must be so instructed. When I have control of both ends of a line I typically instruct the modems to tolerate a carrier drop of up to three seconds. Don ------------------------------ From: Kenneth R Crudup Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 01:04:43 GMT In article <11444@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mje99!mje@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Mark J Elkins) writes: >As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem use. >When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some >manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so >he was forced to make at least one call a day. In article <11470@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu says: >Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this? He lives in the Republic of South Africa. Obviously the government and its agencies (which I bet the phone company is) do anything they want. Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant nubian!kenny@ima.ima.isc.com 14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569 (617) 442 6585 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 00:27:05 CDT From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics In article <11636@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: You'd have the device on your public, listed line. >Your animal's tags would show your non-pub private number. And since Right. How many of us can afford to have two voice lines? I have two lines because I need a dedicated data line. The idea of two voice lines, one published and one unpublished, strikes me as both silly and expensive. J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r) [Moderator's Note: Many folks have two lines, particularly if there are children in the family. Or, they may have two lines with one for voice and the other *primarily* for data, like myself. I still take/make some voice calls on my second line as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 2 Sep 90 16:21:01 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY #Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to #answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after #several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on #the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first #or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the #owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no #charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to #say. Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea. PAT] Oh, yeah, I have that on my machine. You mean to say they're not doing it any more? Well, mine isn't really reliable, anyway. (For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone. Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all. (Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... ) Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner [Moderator's Note: Yes, toll saver is still found on most answering machines. Like yourself, my answering machine had a two digit code, but I no longer use the machine since I now call forward to voice mail when I am not around. And, my voice mail has toll saver also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Date: 3 Sep 90 00:55:42 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In article <11618@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >In article <11423@accuvax.nwu.edu>, joymrmn!root@uunet.uu.net (Marcel >D. Mongeon) writes: >> that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to >> allow direct dialled international is allowed. Apparently the SL-1 >I can't help you with an SL-1's programming, but I will tell you what >I do with a Mitel SX-200, and it may help. >Before you pick the trunk group to use, you must look at more digits! How do I do this without a least cost routing system in place? Bell Canada refuses to implement BARS (The SL-1 least cost system) for us on the basis that we are not permitted to resell anything but Message Toll Service to hotel guests. We are not allowed to resell FX, Outwats or anything! >The smart exception to 8+ = 9+ is to treat 9+11 as a panicked 9+911, >and allow both those and 8+911 from ANY phone reguardless of how >otherwise restricted. That includes maid's closets, elevator, lobby >house phones, pool area phones and phones that can't even terminate an >incoming call. Excellent Idea!! I especially like the panic version! One problem that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to imform the front desk area when 911 has been dialled. Apparently, such a feature does not exist! >The other reasonable option is to totally DUMP hobic! and get >'screening 94' or whatever they call it where you are. This says allow >0+ on the trunk, but NOTHING gets billed back to the property. Welcome to the wonderful world of Bell Canada. Even though Northern Telecom is a subsidiary of Bell Canada and keeps coming up with wonderful technical enhancements for everything which is Telecom related, Bell Canada doesn't see the point of implementing any of it! Therefore, the screening system you suggest doesn't exist North of the Border! >At 200 rooms, why don't you have T1 into some IXC's POP for some >serious low cost service? This is really funny. When I asked our Bell Canada account rep about the possibility of a direct T1 to the CO she asked: "What's that?". Someone who was a little more in the know let me know that in Bell Canada territory (which is presently already 100% digital) T1's wouldn't be available in any substantial number (or at a rate that made it price competitive) for a couple of years and then it would be principally for data service. A fully digital switching system and they don't know what T1 is! Go figure. Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 13:51 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available >It is a device that plugs has a RJ-11 and a DB-25 connector on it. >It converts CallerID to Your serial port. It comes with some >software that allows you to hook the output of the box to your >favorite database (or other application program.). There's another existing source, perhaps offered in a way PC bulletin board operators and general business would like it. The product: CallerID+Plus, from Rochelle Communications, Inc., Suite 200, 8716 North Mopac, Austin, TX 78759 POTS (512) 794-0088, FAX (512) 794-9997. Rochelle offers their RJ-11/RS-232 interfacing hardware separately or in conjunction with software that appears to be nicely suited to the small business. Their market thrust for the total package seems slanted toward small business use. For interest, their ANI-232 demodulator appears to be workable with either LEC CLASS Caller ID or with MCI's IXC Caller ID functions. It certainly will be neat when my local Sysop's BBS can just answer up and take me directly to the menu screen because he could get Caller ID on my when I dial in ... just to mention a possible hobbyist example as well. ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Labor Day, 1990 Organization: Monash_University Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:22:14 GMT In article <11635@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was > deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States > still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the [1] [2] > world. For that, we can thank the telephone workers, and we should pay > tribute to them today, along with all workers, for their contributions > to our nation. [1] Come, Patrick. What is your evidence for this assertion? While not singing praises for my own country's network, I must say that my observations of the US network compared with others in the world lead me towards other less complimentary adjectives. It is a common observation that Americans always seem to shout on the telephone. The reason? [2] if you mean most technically advanced, I must ask again for the evidence. If you mean the most complicated mish-mash of vendors, companies, and switches, not to mention prices and operating standards, I must agree. Do you really want to pay tribute for this? Jim Breen (jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au) Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology, Monash University PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 [Moderator's Note: I think many Americans shout on the telephone not from any failure of the telephone to convey their voice properly, but from some other cultural thing. I've experienced what you say, and I cannot explain it, but it has nothing to do with the clarity of the connection in most cases. Regards the technical mish-mash prevelant here, please note my message said *despite* divestiture -- not because of it -- we have an excellent system. And I for one *will* sing praises for your telephone system there. I spend about $1000 per month on international calling. I call about a dozen countries routinely, on both sides of the world. Most of my calls to Australia and New Zealand connect within seconds and sound like they were in the same phone exchange as myself. I still think the USA's network is best; but surely yours is in second or third place, along with New Zealand, the UK, and Hong Kong (loud and clear!). Most South American telephone systems are bad news, as is a lot of the middle east. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #616 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19915; 4 Sep 90 7:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12907; 4 Sep 90 5:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07694; 4 Sep 90 4:03 CDT Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 2:17:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #617 BCC: Message-ID: <9009040217.ab06630@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Sep 90 02:13:48 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 617 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [TELECOM Moderator] World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status? [Anthony Lee] TASI Acronym? [Chris Schmandt] RJ11 --> French Phone Jack Adapter [Mick Laver] Call Detail Recording [John Higdon] Clever, Eye-Catching Ad [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner] Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available [J. Eric Townsend] Re: What is Toll Saver? [Pushpendra Mohta] Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:10:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! While conversing with someone the other day about profitable 900 services, we tried to decide which would make more money for the proprietor of such a service: sex or religion. Both would pay, but which would be more profitable? We left it as a toss up. And now comes a report from the {Weekly World News}, July 31, 1990, which leads me to believe religion would be a far more profitable type of 900 service. Here is the report from WWN: "Suckers Fork Over Big $$ to Talk to God on the Phone!" By Scotty Paul Desperate, downtrodden believers were easy prey for three coldhearted con artists who bilked them out of their life savings -- by pretending to have a direct phone line to God. But instead of talking to the Almighty, the gullible old fools were chitchatting with a bearded wino in a rundown flat in the ghetto of Naples, Italy. [Moderator's Note: Bearded wino in a rundown flat? Sounds like a few 900-Service phone rooms in Chicago! PAT] "Those poor people were lonely with nothing much to live for except a glimpse into the hereafter," said Police Inspector Guiseppi Nonno. "They were convinced they were talking to God and paid big money to do it." The sleazy swindle was set up by two ex-convicts, Antonio Meli and Mario Locatelli, according to Inspector Nonno. "They charged 50,000 lire ($40 USA) for the first minute, and 25,000 lire for each additional minute thereafter," he added. "Some of the victims gave these bums everything they had." Heartless hucksters Meli and Locatelli showed no remorse as they were convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to six years in prison. They admitted forming a weird religious cult and persuading naive, trusting souls to join. "And then the two creeps squeezed them dry. Three believers even mortgaged their homes," said Inspector Nonno. The greedy gurus opened their hotline to God soon after an elderly woman came into their headquarters pleading for spiritual guidance. "She was afraid the Devil had taken over her soul. She wanted to drive him away and get right with God again," said Meli at his trial. Another pitiful old man sought sanctuary in the cult because he was lonely. "There was really nothing going on in his life ... nothing to live for," said Meli. "He wanted to talk to God about heaven." "We told them we could arrange for them to talk to God directly," Meli testified. "They fell for it hook, line and sinker." Playing God was alcoholic Roberto Scalfari, a well-educated man who had once been a college professor, but had slipped to skid row. "We gave him a piece of the action and he was a very, very convincing God," said Meli. "When the word spread, people were lining up to use our heavenly line. We could not make the calls fast enough." Scalfari died of liver failure before he could be brought to trial for his part in the crime. ---------------------- And you thought 900 Service was a ripoff! PT ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status ? Date: 2 Sep 90 23:51:50 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au The Federation for a Democratic China is about to have their Second Congress in the middle of September (this month). Many of their members are scattered across the world. The Congress will be in San Franciso but for various reasons many members probably won't be able to attend. What is the current status of world wide teleconferencing? How many studios can be hooked at the same time? Are there any agreements between different Telcos (e.g. AT&T OTC(Australia)) for world-wide teleconferencing? Most of all, what's the cost? Thanks in advance, Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia [Moderator's Note: To the extent the telephone administrations and the US telcos (AT&T/Sprint/MCI) have billing and interchange agreements with each other, they would have them where teleconferencing was concerned. For example, AT&T will establish a conference to anywhere in the world, provided at least one participant is in the USA. The cost is not inexpensive, but on a per-participant basis gets less expensive as more people get involved. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Schmandt Subject: TASI Acronym? Date: 3 Sep 90 15:55:59 GMT Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA A number of conversations can share a significantly smaller number of circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during silent periods, and re-assigning one when speech starts. I recollect such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in the online glossaries. Can anyone enlighten as to what it stands for? Is there a standard number for how much "circuit compression" it provides? Thanks in advance, chris ------------------------------ From: Mick Laver Subject: RJ11 --> French Phone Jack Adapter Date: 3 Sep 90 18:35:31 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego My boss is taking a MacPortable with a FAX/Data modem to Nice in a few weeks. I've been trying to find a source for an adapter to allow him to use a RJ11 plug with a French phone jack, since I can't really send him with wire strippers and a soldering gun. I'm not having much luck with sources like the French consulate or travel agencies. Can anyone point me to a US source for such an animal? Thanks much. Mick Laver mlaver@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Call Detail Recording Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 1 Sep 90 12:14:26 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon After reading parts one and two of the Epson special, an interesting question has come to mind. What about Call Detail Recording? A short time back, a distant acquaintance dropped by to conduct a matter of business. During the visit, he asked to use the telephone. No problem. He made a couple of calls and happened to notice the sound of a printer in the other room everytime he hung up the phone. In response to his inquiry, I told him that it was SMDR that monitored all calls, in and out. He turned white and asked, "You mean that everything I have dialed on this phone is on paper?" "Yes, it is." "I dialed some very private numbers and I would like to see those records destroyed." "No way." This fellow is still miffed. Well, what about it? Does anyone have the right to know what numbers are dialed on his phone (including local)? What about big companies who run SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in the lobby -- leaving a trail of his calling card and what have you on the SMDR? Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:28:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Clever, Eye-Catching Ad John Higdon's message today on Call Detail reminded me of a witty, very clever ad in {Teleconnect Magazine}, September, 1990. A man's picture, with a caption saying: "300 truckers had a major hang-up, so this man recommended analysis. Control Key call accounting straightened them out." The man in the picture turns out to be John Stenger, President, GBS Communications, Inc., St. Louis, MO. He goes on to tell us, "Telecom problems were hurting the trucking company's business. Drivers and customers were frustrated by long delays and busy signals. So we installed a new Toshiba Perception II Digital PBX with a Control Key PL-300 Call Accounting System. "It's been a big success, right from the installation. The company is happy, because the PL-300 product helped them identify trunk usage problems. That meant smoother operations for my customer, In fact, they have given me more business, and that makes me happy, too." Etcetera ... I thought the part about the hang-ups being solved by analysis was pretty clever, and thought you would enjoy it also. Since I've quoted this much from their ad, I'll mention the company, which is the Control Key Division of Moscom Corporation. They are in East Rochester, NY on the number 716-385-6440. PT ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 3 Sep 90 05:00:54 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY In article <11620@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal Schwartz writes: # If you're female, and I'm into harrassing, I wanna know what number # I dialed so I can look it up again, and harrass you later when you are home # (sexist comment intended ... there are probably other combinations too). Okay, good point. Still, I'm *not* female, and, as a matter of fact, I ain't getting enough "harassment" lately, ha-ha. # If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can # look up your address in the book, and rob you. VERY good point. I am changing my answering-machine message forthwith. Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:03:50 CDT From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics In article <11660@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >It certainly will be neat when my local Sysop's BBS can just answer up >and take me directly to the menu screen because he could get Caller ID >on my when I dial in *There's* a security hole for you. All J. Random Phreak has to do is patch into a local junction box. (I forsee people not having both password *and* CNI protection on a line.) And you thought your C$ bill was high when your password got hacked. 1/2 :-) J. Eric Townsend University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r) [Moderator's Note: Well Eric, nothing is going to be perfect, but many little things help with the problem of computer break-ins. Yes, the phreak could tie into a junction box someplace, and of course he could easily get discovered by the owner of the pair he is on. He could take his laptop portable down to the payphone on the corner, I guess, even on a cold night in January. It boils down to how much effort is a phreak going to make to break in somewhere when he knows he has to run a veritable obstacle course along the way of Caller*ID, callback modems, eight or ten character passwords to be deciphered, etc. There will still be some who try, and some who succeed at breaking in, if not necessarily succeeding at avoiding prosecution later. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:35:36 PDT From: Pushpendra Mohta Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver? Organization: CERFnet, La Jolla, CA #Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to #answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after #several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on #the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first #or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the #owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no #charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to #say. Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea. PAT] Be prepared to be mislead if you call immediately after someone called and left a message. On most (non-digital) answering machines, You will continue to hear rings till the machine resets itself. pushpendra CERFnet [Moderator's Note: This of course depends on your call arriving within seconds of the last call; not impossible, but not terribly likely unless you have a very busy line. And one guideline would be if you called and got a busy signal, then called a minute later and got a ring, let it ring until it does reset. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Date: 4 Sep 90 02:32:45 EDT In article <11659@accuvax.nwu.edu>, root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > One problem that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to > inform the front desk area when 911 has been dialled. The PC (that I assume is) monitoring the SMDR port might be able to also notice 911 calls and give special notice of any desired sort, but it would be after the call is completed and logged. Still it would generally be before the Police/Fire/Ambulance truck arrives. [Moderator's Note: An interesting aspect of some 911 tariffs is a provision that a 'responsible' subscriber with a recognized security force of his own, i.e. a university or medical center complex, occupying hundreds of acres, or several city blocks can have 911 calls from within the subscriber's premises routed to his own security or police force. Typically, the subscriber will have centrex service, occupying all, or most of an exchange. Panic calls to 911 are routed by the CO to the proper office within the institution. Not all 911 tariffs are written to provide this, and the municipal police/fire agencies generally resist this unless they have a *very good* working relationship with the private force. Sometimes telco has to write the tariff after the fact, once the subscriber and the local police have a working agreement. It cannot be implemented without local police and fire approval. For example, the University of Chicago Police are fully sworn officers of the law. Their authority is equal to that of a police officer of the city of Chicago within the geographic limits of the UC campus. Chicago police monitor the UC Police radio frequency and vice versa. A call from a security 'hotline' phone to campus police can be 'patched' immediatly to the city with a button on the dispatcher's console. As he is talking to the caller and learns the address is outside their immediate jurisdiction, he already has the Chicago PD en route. UC is surrounded by a crummy neighborhood on three sides. A call of 'a woman screaming for help', a report of shots fired, or an officer needs assistance brings help from both forces in a minute. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #617 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10132; 5 Sep 90 3:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18441; 5 Sep 90 1:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15154; 5 Sep 90 0:38 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 0:20:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #618 BCC: Message-ID: <9009050020.ab12006@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Sep 90 00:20:27 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 618 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 38.4 Modems: Myth? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: TASI Acronym? [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: TASI Acronym? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: TASI Acronym? [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: TASI Acronym? [Steve Pershing] Re: Call Detail Recording [Ed Greenberg] Re: Call Detail Recording [Kevin L. Blatter] How Much is Recorded on SMDR? [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: 38.4 Modems: Myth? Date: 4 Sep 90 01:26:24 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11625@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lamy@sobeco.com (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: > FastTalk V.32/42b modem that is claimed to provide throughputs of up > to 38.4. We have an application currently using stat muxes over a You don't want a V.32/V.42bis modem, you want a V.32bis/V.42bis! The dust may not quite have settled in the standards arena, but IF you buy a product from a company that is doing the modem part of it with DSP technology (as opposed to having used the Rockwell chips), it is quite reasonable to assume they can cover all bases NOW, and if push comes to shove and someone fiddles yet again with the standards, they can simply give you a new prom or (for those that blast their own) let you suck it off their BBS. V.32bis does 14.4 FULL DUPLEX as its native speed. The V.42bis gets you the error correction and compression you want. Having V.42bis on a 9.6kb V.32 modem is 'nice', but why not start with the latest pre-compression speed. With normal success for compression these days, 19.2 just isn't enough, you need at least 38.4, especially if you are starting at 14.4. You may well have other problems, brought on by this speed. If you have a built-in PC card modem, pray they either use a UART like National's NS16550AN, or at least have it socketed so you can stuff one in. If you use an external modem, most, even the 'el-cheapo', AT-IO cards have socketed UARTS, and many simply leave the 2nd one unpopulated, anyway, ready for you to stuff in an NS16550AN. Someone who knows for sure better correct me, but I think any standards level bickering about v.42bis is currently over what other lower speeds are supported, not about the 14.4 itself. A company like Digicom Systems Inc (DSI) right NOW will give you V.32/V.42bis or V.32bis/V.42, but not both. The current hardware should be readily upgradable is a few WEEKS to the new proms to do V.32bis/V.42bis! Their "PLUS OPTION" upgrade package will take a (not so) vanilla v.32 modem listing at around $795. and make it do BOTH V.32bis AND V.42bis as well as to do Group-3 FAX! (they include a floppy for for their MSDOS 'FlashFax' s/w - the OS2 and Unix flavors are being developed) is about $200. more list. Of course noone ever pays list ... That was the boxed modem price, the PC card will be less. If you want to take T1 in, there is a company that makes a rack mount little gem that can take in up to 20 T1s! and on DSP cards that can start you at economical v.22(bis) type speeds. When you need faster speeds for any of the 480 modems that implements (20 x 24 = 480), you just pay for new license to run the V.32 (or better) s/w! You can get all 480 ports out as eia cables if you really want, but you may prefer to let them keep the signals inside and run them through the built in PAD and bring all out via a HIGH SPEED x.25 cable. These can be used for central computer sites, but, since they also work on feature group B and D trunks, anyone with enough traffic can deploy these around the country where 'normal' IXC carriers would connect to LECs, and get user's dial in traffic on 950-xxxx (feature group B) or other creative numbers (but needing 10xxx or default status) on feature group D trunks. WHY? Try saving probably OVER 1/2 the cost of using 1-800 terminating into T1s. If you are a credit card verification, or Compuserve, or a Telenet, or Amex or type application, this is where your world probably is heading. Given time, this hardware might just implement LAT/TCP-IP terminal server functionality as am alternate to the built in PAD. Lest I forget, for the few of you that need something this big, they are: Primary Access. That slight digression was simply to point out that DSP chips right NOW are in modems that are UPGRADEABLE by S/W (firmware if you prefer to nitpick), and that you can BUY today. If you can't get v.32bis with v.42bis, or a FIRM no/low cost upgrade commitment for the very immediate future, try another brand! - no connection to any vendor above (yet)... ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: TASI Acronym? Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 12:31:30 GMT [in a section on TDM] "... to TDM several speech channels by taking advantage of pauses between words and statements. Utilizing this principle, a Time Assignment Speech Interpolation (TASI) system is used on many overseas channels to effectively increase the capacity of the channels. Again, to avoid problems with more simultaneous talkers than available channels, the number of talkers and channels should be rather large (100 or so). Obviously, the switching in such a scheme must be very rapid, and the resulting complex equipment is not attractive except for use on expensive channels such as overseas applications." From Transmission Systems for Communications, 4ed, 1970, Bell Labs. Since this reference is 20 years old, the costs and tradeoffs have changed. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: TASI Acronym? Date: 4 Sep 90 15:37:19 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during > such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in TASI stands for something like: "Time Assignment Speach Interpolation" if I remember correctly. It was expensive to implement, so was mostly used on transatlantic cables. The old analog versions have given way to the modern digital versions marketed to folks with large global nets and big budgets. Not only is no bandwidth given you in quiet periods, but also your speech may be slightly further delayed if buffers instantaneously backup beyong the capacity of the pipe to carry it all. When you can't see the lips speaking, how are you to know that that pause was more than just satelite delay? Also beginnings and ends of sylabyls may get slightly clipped, and the human ear, wonderful thing that it is, never misses anything. Republic Telecom can easily give you 40 voice channels on 5 x 56kb, with some provision for handling fools who try to sneak modem traffic across where it does not belong. That is a small size box for them. Folks with more modest budgets may want to check Pacific Communication Sciences, Inc, too, if you want clever voice compression, but not traditional TASI. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: TASI Acronym? Date: 4 Sep 90 19:36:08 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <11667@accuvax.nwu.edu>, geek@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes... >A number of conversations can share a significantly smaller number of >circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during >silent periods, and re-assigning one when speech starts. I recollect >such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in >the online glossaries. > Can anyone enlighten as to what it stands for? Is there a standard >number for how much "circuit compression" it provides? Time Assignment Speech Interpolation is actually a form of packetized voice transmission. It was first used in the early 1970s on undersea cables. The idea is to take small chunks of audio, run them through a level detector, and only send them if they aren't "silent". Then each one can be prefaced with a channel header so the receving end knows which channel is getting which call over the trunk pool. Typically you get nearly 2:1 compression with voice. While AT&T's large TASI systems came first, many private networks used the Storage Technology COM-II TASI about a decade ago. (We did here at Digital.) But analog TASI is obsolete. Newer Digital TASI, now called DSI, systems generally run over T1 carrier. The StrataCom IPX is such a box; it sends 192-bit frames with a 24-bit header and 168-bit audio payload. It's nearly toll-quality even with silence suppression enabled. Another example is AT&T's Integrated Access Cross-Connect Switch (IACS), which uses frame relay-based DSI. It's widely used on AT&T's international network. You may have used it without knowing. Typical 2:1 compression ratios are being impacted by fax. Since fax (like dial-up data) sends a constant audio signal, it can't be compressed. We had the same problem on our TASI years ago, and actually routed a lot of dial-up data around it. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TASI Acronym? From: Steve Pershing Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 19:52:22 PDT Organization: The Questor Project: FREE World-wide News & e-Mail for All! TASI was (I think) invented by Bell Labs at least 15 years ago. It stands for Time Assignment Speech Interpolation. The original purpose was to provide more voice circuits on overseas cables. Since the actual time that a voice is really speaking is rather small, the original TASI allowed for somewhere around a 5:1 increase in conversations. Internet: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca | POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Phones: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682-6659 | Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681-0670 | Canada V6E 4L2 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 08:04 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording John Higdon tells of having an associate visit who was p*ssed that John's SMDR recorded details of his calls. This happened to me, visiting a friend who has a little Panasonic switch. Fortunately, I was standing right by the printer and grabbed the printout. In this case it was mild. I'd _give_ Larry my credit card number, but he does have kids (good kids, but kids nonetheless), and it points out that we leave that credit card number all over the place when we dial. On a similar subject, did you know that most Unix machines can be set to record both bad login attempts and bad passwords entered to a good user id? So, if you normally log in with a password of "rosemary" and you accidentally use "trosemary" by hitting two keys, you've left your password for the sysadmin. Moral: don't use the same password on more than one system. I forget the names of these files, but they live in /usr/adm/something_or_other and they should most definitely be protected 600 and owned by root. Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ From: "Kevin L. Blatter" Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: 4 Sep 90 18:40:48 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <11669@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [ Story of John's acquaintance using his phone deleted ] > This fellow is still miffed. Well, what about it? Does anyone have the > right to know what numbers are dialed on his phone (including local)? > What about big companies who run SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in > the lobby -- leaving a trail of his calling card and what have you on > the SMDR? Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All > numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"? I say that I have an absolute right to know what numbers are being dialed from my phone (I, like John, have an SMDR device hooked up to my two home lines) whether the calls are toll calls or not. On the other hand most people do not realize that when they check in to a hotel and use their calling cards to avoid the hotel's rip-off phone rates, that chances are the hotel is going to have their calling card number! For a few years prior to coming to work for AT&T I wrote call accounting systems which utilizes SMDR information for billing or whatever and our standard practice was if we saw a calling card number come through that we stripped the information out and classified the call as a 'charge call' which meant that we would not rate the call. However, we could have stored the information for who-knows-what purpose. Perhaps 'we' (whoever 'we' are) should place notices on our phones as John suggests, stating that dialed information is being recorded. After all, resturants often announce that they use microwave ovens for the would-be pacemaker customers. Use at your own risk. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Lincroft, NJ Disclaimer - AT&T may or may not share my opinions. [Moderator's Note: Re hotels and others with call detail having a record of your calling card number: How do you think credit card calls were handled years ago? You passed the number to the operator and the hotel got 'memo' time and charges for commission purposes, etc. You are dealing with an ethics thing here. Either the people that must deal with record keeping that you create are honest about it, or they are not honest about it. Many a telco operator could secretly write down your calling card number and abuse it later. Some have done so, some have been caught. Hotel operators are the same way. An honest person in a position of trust does not abuse the trust. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: How Much is Recorded on SMDR? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 4 Sep 90 11:39:24 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon A number of e-mail correspondents have raised the question of how much information is recorded via SMDR. Does it just record the phone number dialed into the local exchange, or does it record calling card numbers, F(O)ON card numbers and the like as well? The answer is: it depends, even within the same system. In the case of my simple Panasonic KX-T1232, if the caller is using an electronic phone (which actually sends digits to the switch via keyscan rather than DTMF), the entire session will appear on the SMDR printout. Since it is not tying up a DTMF register, the electronic phone's keyscan will be active for the entire call. On a single line phone, however, once the original number is dialed, the delay between those digits and the subsequent ones that include the actual call billing info is usually great enough to give the DTMF register time to drop off the line. At that point, the system is deaf to DTMF on that line and those digits will not be recorded. On a "real" PBX, such as the ITT 3100, the entire number to be dialed on the exchange is recorded by the switch which then selects the route and redials the call. From that time on, the SMDR is deaf to DTMF entered by the caller. In other words, only the call as presented to the local exchange appears on the SMDR. Has my SMDR scooped up people's private call billing info? Yes. Do I use it for nefarious purposes? No. That's not why I have SMDR. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: See my comments above. I'd like to think that most telecom professionals are ethical people who do not abuse information provided to them in the performance of their duties. If we have to start worrying about *that*, then every telco operator, every hotel operator, every billing clerk in the business office, etc becomes someone to suspect. Where does it stop? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #618 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12161; 5 Sep 90 5:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14934; 5 Sep 90 3:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18030; 5 Sep 90 2:43 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 2:02:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #619 BCC: Message-ID: <9009050202.ab14630@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Sep 90 02:02:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 619 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What is Toll Saver? [John Higdon] Re: What is Toll Saver? [Ted Powell] Re: Labor Day, 1990 [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Jody Kravitz] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barrey Jewall] Re: The Meaning of COCOT [Dan Bloch] Re: Caller*ID to RS-232 Now Available [Peter da Silva] Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [Paolo Bellutta] Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around? [pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com] CO's Split Across AC's [Jack Winslade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver? Date: 4 Sep 90 10:24:31 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Pushpendra Mohta writes: > Be prepared to be mislead if you call immediately after someone called > and left a message. On most (non-digital) answering machines, You > will continue to hear rings till the machine resets itself. Ah, what a sheltered life I've led. The two mechanical answering machines that I have owned that had "toll saver" (or as someone once put it, "cheap realtor") didn't have that problem, and for different reasons. The first was an ancient Coda-a-Phone model 333. This unit did not come with this mode, but one day I got a great idea. The machine had a light on it that would come on if the incoming message tape was "off home", indicating visually that you had messages. There was also an internal resistor that one could change to set the number of rings that would be ignored before the unit answered. Why not put a little relay in the unit that would bridge another resistor in the circuit if the "off home light" was lit, causing the machine to answer on the first, rather than fourth ring? It worked perfectly. And this was long before I had ever heard (1975) of "toll saver". The machine also had the advantage of being able to "reset" immediately. As soon as it hung up, it was ready for the next call. The other machine was a Panasonic two-line (I forget the model number). After each call, it would churn and whirr and clunk, but the entire time this was going on the line was kept off hook. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ted Powell Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver? Reply-To: Ted Powell Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver, BC Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 00:15:52 GMT }[Moderator's Note: This of course depends on your call arriving within }seconds of the last call; not impossible, but not terribly likely }unless you have a very busy line. And one guideline would be if you }called and got a busy signal, then called a minute later and got a }ring, let it ring until it does reset. PAT] Better yet, hang up and try again in a couple of minutes. With my machine at least, if the caller hangs up before the beep, this doesn't count as a message. That is, assuming no other messages on the tape, it will answer after four rings rather than two. Getting a busy signal only means that someone was on the line, not that they had anything to say. ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted (Ted Powell) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 10:07:22 CDT From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Labor Day, 1990 In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes: >Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was >deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States >still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From what I read daily in comp.dcom.telecom, the US definitely does not have the finest or the most technically complex phone system in the world. What have you based this sweeping statement on?? Surely not the all important 'User Satisfaction'? Adam Ashby (+1)(708) 632 3876 - work time (+1)(708) 934 1431 - play time ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya [Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was published in East Germany, Poland, Brazil or Haiti, what type of messages would you see here from day to day? Admittedly, user satisfaction has gone down since divestiture, and we have lost some of the margin we maintained for decades, but we are still far in front, which is more a testament to the old Bell System than it is to the federal judge :{ who made it all possible. Readers, suppose you tell me: (You generally have no reluctance to do so!) -- Whose is best? Whose is worst? Why? And if you say the USA, was it because of the judge, or despite him? Title your replies, Re: The Best and Worst. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers Date: 4 Sep 90 15:41:39 GMT Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: >When the operator finally answered and I asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she >said 'wrong number' and immediatly hung up. I have a feeling that they >have been getting flooded!! I think I'll try a few person-to-person >calls tomorrow. (: I'm behind on my reading, so by the time I called this morning there were no busy signals, and the operator answered promptly. When I asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she said 'wrong number' and immediately hung up. I called back, and began with an apology, and then asked if she had received very many calls. Her answer: Yea! about 1000 per day for the first two days. I then asked if there was any way she could help me get hold of Irnalee. Answer: "No, I really doesn't know Irnalee's phone number." I thanked her, and hung up. Tongue in cheek mode on: Does anyone know the POTS numbers for the Mercury News' telemarketers? ------------------------------ From: Barrey Jewall Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 5 Sep 90 01:25:30 GMT Reply-To: Barrey Jewall Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia In article <11569@accuvax.nwu.edu>BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >In article <11465@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) (ME!) >writes: >> About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to... >> she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator >> says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then >> I called my mom. >Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT >carrier. Let the first carrier lose the return business for being >dangerous to use! >Just a thought... I'm afraid I may be dense, but what do you mean "being dangerous to use" ??? Is AT&T going to cut off my arms (or other, more neccessary body parts?!?) 8-) That's a BIG smiley for the Humor-impaired (no, NOT the guy I'm replying to!) + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + [Moderator's Note: As John Covert pointed out in a recent message, the tariff does say this is illegal, and the security forces of the respective telcos have very sophisticated detection methods in place. And sometimes, yes, they *will* make an issue out of it. As for body parts, the worst case I've ever heard of was when they had a guy in custody who had been caught phreaking; they took a large, sharp knife and cut off his ... uh, his dialing finger. Yes, that's it! His dialing finger. They told him since he wouldn't use it the way nature and Ma Bell intended, they would just cut it off and he wouldn't have one any more. Plastic surgeons built a new dialing finger for him, but it never did work as well as the original. The poor devil was in therapy for a long time afterward, and I understand to this day he still has to place all his calls manually through the operator. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 1990 23:16:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan_Bloch@transarc.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of COCOT > I have been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I see many > messages with stuff about COCOTs in them, but I can't figure out what > one is ... Would someone please tell me what a COCOT is? > [Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone. > Some say it in reverse. They are the privately owned payphones you see > springing up everywhere. I've also been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I'd figured out what COCOT stands for, and I've gathered that the general opinion on this bboard is that they're a crime against humanity. I'm still unclear on exactly what they can do to me, e.g. if I use one to make a calling card call with an AT&T calling card. So what kind of stuff do they do? Thanks, Dan Bloch dan@transarc.com [Moderator's Note: For starters, they typically charge rates much higher than payphones operated by telco. They rip you off on long distance calls; they disable the keypad after you connect to a number, making it impossible to use them when calling pagers, etc. They accept your AT&T card for calls, pretend to connect you to an AT&T operator, then send you an outrageous bill for the call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:30:29 GMT Interesting. The problem is that for home computers with one RS232 port that port is already used up for the modem. On the other hand, it does sound like a nice job for the CP/M machine in my closet. (How I wish that computers still came with two serial ports ... one for the printer! The difference in cost between a serial and parallel printer is way outweighed by the greater utility of a second serial port.) Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 14:33:56 MET DST In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 617, Message 1 of 10 our Moderator reports a nice rip off from a guy in Naples using a service to talk to God. I don't have any problem in beleiving the fact that someone in Naples could come up with such an idea. I remember that someone, just after the Chernobyl accident, was going door to door to "decontaminate money". After collecting the money from the people he asked to be left alone with the money so that people couldn't be contaminated, then he would steal the money, and tell those poor people not to enter the room for some hours. Anyway, in the message about this God Calling Service, there is something that sounds strange. As far as I know in Italy while there is a service similar to the 800 numers (the "prefix" 1678 costs as a local call from everywhere in the country), there is no equivalent to the 900 numbers. The phone service is billed by SIP (the Italian Telco) in therms of "scatti" (roughly "ticks"). A local call costs one tick (not everywhere), a 1678- call one tick, and long distance calls are billed on a time basis (one tick every xx seconds, where xx depends on the distance and time of call). SIP offers some services, like DA, DA in Europe, international DA, time, news, weather report, etc. The cost of these services is expressed in ticks as well. For example DA is free if the number is not yet published on the phone directory otherwise is five ticks, time is three ticks and so on. These services are operated by the Telco (some of them in association with other companies. For example, news is organized by RAI the public broadcasting company). But I've never seen a pay-phone service organized by other companies. Therefore I see no way that this guy collected that money using the phone calls. Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.uucp ITALY bellutta%irst@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: My assumption is they put the call through on a regular phone line, taking care the sucker did not see what number was dialed. They then collected money from the person, handed the victim the phone, and let them talk to God for a certain number of minutes before taking the phone away. If the police had not broken up the racket first, I guess it would have stopped anyway since they say God is dead, apparently from liver disease. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? Date: 4 Sep 90 17:01:00 GMT Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory Patrick Humphrey wrote: > the only kind available. The reasoning was that the areas with large > numbers of calls should get the NPA numbers that could be dialed the > quickest -- hence New York City got 212, Los Angeles 213, Chicago 312, That's what I always heard. yet, Pittsburgh (population of the metro area about one million?) has 412, and Phily (population of the metro area about five million?) has 215, which is surely anomalous under the above rule. Similarly, why Austin (512) and Cleveland (216)? Were there other technical considerations at the time? (Apart from physical proximity of adjacent numbers, such as 212 not being near 213 and 312 etc) pc [Moderator's Note: 412 and 215 are about the same length: seven pulls versus eight. 512 and 216 are close: eight pulls versus nine. It is not like Nevada or North Carolina (19 pulls) or southern Indiana's 812 area (11 pulls). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:17:32 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: CO's Split Across AC's Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 A while ago we had a discussion on CO's that straddle area code boundaries and are dialable as more than one. If you remember, we found one here in the Omaha area which was -- in SOME cases -- dialable either as 402 or 712. I recently returned from a trip to the Black Hills area of South Dakota. (Deadwood: Las Vegas of the Midwest. ;-) I stumbled upon many examples of CO's split between the 308/605 codes or the 402/605 codes. I don't know how many of these there are. There may be hundreds. I saw more in the local phone books than I can remember. These were cases where there are communities right on or near the Nebraska - South Dakota border. They often appear in such form as 'Whatnot, SD' and 'South Whatnot, NE' or 'Cornholdt, NE' and 'North Cornholdt, SD'. (I forget the actual names, but these are typical.) These communities are VERY small. If you think Omaha is out in the toolies ... we are talking major sticks here. These towns are only a few hundred in population, if that. From the limited amount of dorking around I found time and place to do, I determined that these were all SxS offices (with some REALLY funky ringback and busy tones) which maybe served 100 or so subscribers on both sides of the border. These offices came nowhere near to filling up a complete 1000's group out of an office code. In some cases, the NNX were the same in both area codes, in some, they were different. In every case, the same lines (and vacant levels, etc.) could be reached via either AC. My conclusion is that in the 48 states, there are potentially thousands of examples of 'split' central offices if we consider all of the rural communities that are adjacent to or straddle state lines. Good Day! JSW --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4 [1:285/666@fidonet] CP/M, the virus-proof OS, Omaha -- --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: An example of that here was 414-396 / 312-396. Antioch, IL was 312-395. North Antioch, WI is 414-396, but was dialable from *Antioch only* as 396+4D. To reach the *real* 312-396 residents of the village of Antioch had to dial one plus. 414-396 is Illinois Bell's one incursion into the 414 area. Now, Antioch is 708, but so is Blue Island, IL where the 'real' 708-396 lives. I don't know what they do up there now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #619 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04616; 6 Sep 90 2:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01274; 6 Sep 90 0:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19893; 5 Sep 90 23:52 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 22:57:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #620 BCC: Message-ID: <9009052257.ab31765@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Sep 90 22:56:46 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 620 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Robert Kinne] "Hello, You've Reached Theta Chi's VMB" [Brendan Kehoe] Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jay Libove] New 917 Area Code [Tom Neff] Email Privacy and BBS Law [Michael H. Riddle] Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges [Michael H. Riddle] ANI and AMA Question [Matt Funkchick] Follow-Me Roaming Research [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Kinne Subject: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! Date: 5 Sep 90 03:20:33 GMT Reply-To: Robert Kinne Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder A few weeks ago I rejoined the Sierra Club after a few years hiatus. Shortly thereafter, we received a telephone call requesting financial support for a specific Sierra Club fund. We politely declined, explaining that we never contribute or purchase in response to phone solicitation. Somewhat huffily, the caller accepted this. Since then we have had at least one, often two calls per day. The tone has ranged from arrogance to insult, with some relatively abusive. The callers have refused our request to take our name off the targeted list for their solicitations. This has been going on for about three weeks. Today I mailed a resignation to the Sierra Club, pointing out that I am opposed to all pollution, including sound pollution, and that I consider unwanted harassing phone calls to be sound pollution, and that I had no wish to belong to any organization that operates in this manner. I also plan to contact appropriate federal officials to seek a total ban on telephone solicitation, which has grown to comprise at least 20% of the incoming phone calls at my home. Others are encouraged to do the same. [Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the techniques being used. The organization may have not known how obnoxious their agents were on the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 07:33:09 EDT From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: "Hello, You've Reached Theta Chi's VMB.." A pamphlet was placed in my mailbox at school (Widener University in Chester PA) recently: [Fold 1] Attention College Students! Now you can have private 800-based voice mail for less than $10 per month! (plus connect fee and air time) Introducing: International Voice Exchange 1 - 800 + NETWORK (copyright 1990 Eagle Comm Inc) [Fold 2] Do you realize: You could have your own private 800 number for less than $10 per month plus only pennies a call! Through any touchtone phone you could retrieve confidential messages from parents, friends or professors, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year! You could have these convenient services without even owning a telephone! [Fold 3] Presenting: 1 - 800 + NETWORK "Voice Mail" Confidential Message Center! [Undln'd] Now you can enjoy the prestige and convenience of a private 800 number [Blah blah blah blah blah] [Finally:] All of these fabulous features and benefits for only $9.50 per month plus 35 cents perminute air time and a one-time connect fee of $100.00. [And now:] Your international voice exchange communications consultant will meet with you or set up your service over any touch tone phone. Installation time: 5 minutes. [End of pamphlet] This rubbed me wrong the second I saw it; I'm all for the entrepreneurial spirit and all that, but come on ... charging 35 cents for each minute's worth of storage of a digital voice? And $100 for installation?? It's NOT exactly $100 worth of work to add another box on your handy-dandy Plug-Me-Into-Your-PC-And-Get-Five-Hundred- Mailboxes-Going. Yeah, I want to pay this bozo over a dollar and a half per second to add one. This is an affront to me personally simply because I'm well aware of the financial problems that I've gone through during my college career thus far -- having these con artists trying to suck a bit more out (or take blatant advantage of those whose parents are affluent) is disgusting. Brendan Kehoe | Soon: brendan@cs.widener.edu For now: kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu | Or: bkehoe@widener.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Bear in mind the 35 cents pays for the storage *and* for a minute of conversation on the 800 line. It may still be high priced though. Telecom*USA gives 800 voicemail for $2.75 per month plus 29 cents per minute of use, whether its a message being left for you, or you in the box retrieving messages, changing the outgoing message, etc. The 29 cents includes the incoming phone call over your private 800 number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 11:40:36 EDT From: Jay Libove Subject: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable From article <8499@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson): > For two-line service, they should use a cable with two (or more) > twisted pairs. If they did, they would probably have connected one > line to the blue-white pair and the other to the orange-white pair. > If they did that, you shouldn't experience crosstalk, regardless of > the connectors used. Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might actually occasionally interfere with my data communications, and is always annoying (to both parties) on the voice line. Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and correct a situation that they caused? They knew before doing the second line "installation" (just plug in a two-jack plate and split the wires, $75, on top of $40 'line charge' !!!) that the line was to be used for data communication. Thanks, Jay Libove libove@kamet.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp decwrl!"kamet::libove" ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: New 917 Area Code Date: 4 Sep 90 10:52:46 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff The most recent Area Codes list from Patrick showed 917 as (unused). For what it's worth, the newsletter enclosed in this month's New York Tel bill says they're proposing to give it to the Bronx (currently in 212) and also use it for all cellular phones and pagers now in 212. The article at one point says they want to meet "the growing demand for telecommunications devices SUCH AS cellular phones and pagers" [emphasis added], which sounds like maybe modems too, but that's the only mention -- I haven't seen the proposed tariff. If the PSC approves, 917 would open for business in 1992. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 11:30:06 cdt From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Email Privacy and BBS Law Patrick: The next two messages contain the text of a paper I wrote for a class in mass media law, "The Electronic Pamphlet: Computerized Bulletin Board Systems and the Law," and a paper Ruel Hernandez wrote about email privacy. They both seem pertinent to the discussions recently, particularly to the special editions about the Epson suit. They're both pretty good size (70K and 20K+), so I imagine it's straight to the archives again. Mike [Moderator's Note: Thank you for donating these two files to the Telecom Archives. They have been placed on display, under the titles 'email.privacy' and 'computer.bbs.and.the.law'. Readers who want a copy can obtain them using regular ftp protocol: 'ftp lcs.mit.edu', with login anonymous, and user@name.site for a password. Then, you must 'cd telecom-archives'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 16:19:33 cdt From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges From the September 10, 1990, {Insight Magazine.} Story by Susan Dillingham HOTELS GET MESSAGE ON PHONE CHARGES Hotel telephone service, the bane of many a business traveller, is getting a much-needed revamping. After years of runaway pricing, and growing complaints by guests, major hotel chains are starting to reduce or even eliminate surcharges on long-distance calls. First to go at most hotels are charges on tool-free dialing and some credit card and collect calls, says Corporate Travel magazine, a New York monthly that recently reviewed the phone policies of eight hotel chains that cater to corporate travelers. According to the magazine's July survey, only Westin imposes a fee (75 cents) for 800-number calls. Stouffer, Marriott and Radisson all received high marks for having abolished surcharges on collect and credit card calls, while Hilton, Hyatt and Westin still charge 75 cents to $1. Rates for Ramada, also included in the survey, are under review. The hotels are also moving to standardize rates for direct-dial long-distance calls. For those calls, most operations use AT&T's operator-assisted day rate plus a surcharge of 30 to 50 percent. Only the Westin and Hilton chains do not impose surcharges on direct-dial long-distance. Look for the new phone policies to be featured in the hotels' marketing efforts in the coming months. Plans are already under way at Sheraton to offer frequent business travellers a free "safe arrival" call home, says Bill Oates, manager of hotel systems and telecommunications. Free local calls are also under consideration. Says Oates: "Telecommunications has become the latest areas of competition among hotels." ------------------------------ From: funky chicken Subject: ANI and AMA Question Organization: University of Chicago Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 21:25:02 GMT In the process of recording information for billing, are there any times when the originating or destination number is not recorded? I suspect there are. For example, I recall that, in SxS offices with ANI, each phone number's sleeve wire was cabled to a grid of bus panels. Each directory number terminated on a card which held 10 numbers. An identifier would come by and hierarchically (sp?) scan this bus system for a 5800 hz which identified the calling number. However, my memory tells me that all the directory numbers associated with a PBX were fed into a single number network associated with the primary or billing number. If this were the case, wouldn't ANI always identify the calling number as being the primary number, regardless of the actual line used? Is this true and are there similar cases with ESS? I would think it would be wasteful to record all of the numbers called on an AMA tape if many of them do not result in charges. When I used my modem extensively, I had a service which allowed me to make unlimited calls within my LATA for a a monthly fee of $25. Except for analyzing traffic patterns, there would seem to be no reason to keep detailed logs of calls in this sort of situation. Hmmm. I suppose that it is, unfortunately, improper to refer to SxS in the past tense. Matt Funkchick ------------------------------ Date: 4-SEP-1990 19:50:49.24 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: More Follow-Me Roaming A while back I asked a few questions as to how Follow Me Roaming operates and why it is sometimes seemingly inoperative, and here's what I found out: After talking to GTE Mobilnet and the Follow-Me dept (now located in Tampa, Florida), I am now pretty sure that Follow-Me Roaming cuts off at 12AM Eastern time, all over the country. This used to be 1AM Eastern, since Follow Me was previously located in Houston, Texas, (in the Central time zone), but is now in Tampa, which is the Eastern Zone. It had/s been my experience that Follow-Me cuts off at 12AM Eastern no matter where I am, so, it will cut off around 9PM Pacific time. I've noticed this many times while on the GTE SF and the Pac*Tel Sacramento systems. Other people who have Wireline ("B") cell service also noted this, two of them are GTE SF customers, one is a GTE Santa Barbara customer, one is an Southern New England Tel/ "LYNX" customer, and finally, a friend of mine with Bell Atlantic (Philadelphia?) service also noticed this. (Of course the last two are on the East Coast anyhow, so that really doesn't prove anything.) I complained about this to GTE/SF customer service (after waiting for 25 minutes on hold! - but *611 is free, so no airtime charges), and they told me there is nothing that can be done about it right now. They said that the Follow Me Roaming division in Tampa "advises" customers that between 11:30P (Eastern time) and 1AM (Eastern time), Follow-Me may be slow or unavailable, as it is during this time that the system "dumps" all the old numbers and resets itself. This process involves both the Follow-Me Roaming computers in Tampa, as well as those of your home cellular system, which in my case is GTE San Francisco. Therefore, if GTE/SF has 1000 numbers set for Follow Me, it requires time for Tampa to dump all the Follow Me numbers it had stored, and time for the GTE/SF system to "unforward" calls to either the Follow Me system or to the specific remote system that I was Roaming in. Because of this, it may take a while to invoke any *18 (initiate) requests made between 11:30P and 1:00A Eastern time. (Note that I'm not exactly clear as to HOW Follow Me directs the calls ... Does Follow Me in Tampa maintain a large database of all the people in the US and Canada who had invoked Follow Me that day? IE, if I initiate Follow Me, does GTE SF just send all my calls to Tampa, and then Tampa sends the calls to where it knows that I am roaming? Or does Tampa just tell GTE SF what remote system I am in and then GTE SF sends my calls there directly? This may seem a bit of an esoteric distinction, yet if the former were true, all systems using Follow Me would be slow if Tampa were having a slow day, while if the latter were true, then one could get faster Follow Me Roaming by picking a "home" system that didn't have too many customers and thus not have to process as many Follow Me activation/deactivations as a larger company like GTE San Francisco would.) In any event, it seems as if Follow Me is dependent upon its center in Tampa, and if they choose to deactivate at 12A Eastern then West-coast based customers are forced to have a gap in service between 9P and 10:30P (and at times MUCH later!), when Follow Me simply won't work. Why can't Follow Me come up with a code, let's say *17, that DOES NOT automatically deactivate? This way, if I am going to be in Chicago for a week, I won't have to worry about pressing *18 every day, and won't miss any calls due to some of the activate/deactivate problems which Follow Me Roaming seems to have ... I called the Follow Me Roaming people in Tampa and asked them about this, and they were more concenred with who gave me the "secret" number rather than working the problems out or even discussing the possiblility of a "*17" type service with me. Oh well, I should have expected that, but it was GTE Mobilnet SF who told me to call! Initially they thought I WORKED for GTE Mobilnet and wondered why I was asking what appeared to be such an idiotic and naiive question! I'm curious if anyone else has had similar problems with Follow Me Roaming. I realize that 12A Eastern is a bit late for Cell-calls (although cellular service, like landline service, should operate flawlessly 24 hours a day), so probably most of the people on the East coast have not had the opportunity to experience these problems, but maybe some of the more "Western" cell phone users? Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. Pat/Moderator - Have you noticed Follow Me cutting off at about 11P Central recently instead of 12A? If so, this would confirm what the FMR people (reluctantly) told me. If not, well.....who knows... [Moderator's Note: On my trip to the Land of Ahs, the cutoff was always midnight; I was in the central time zone throughout my trip. The reason there is no code to leave Follow Me turned on 'permanently' until you turn it off is because if you should happen to leave the area where you turned it on 'permanently', how would ever it ever get turned off again? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #620 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04986; 6 Sep 90 2:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01274; 6 Sep 90 0:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19893; 5 Sep 90 23:52 CDT Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:40:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #621 BCC: Message-ID: <9009052340.ab03713@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:40:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 621 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Info Wanted on RS232 Port Selectors [John Koontz] TDR Recommendations [Bill Darden] Unusual Connections [Steven King] Repeated Harrassing Calls [Rick Adams] Washington State Running Low [Ken Jongsma] 800 and 900 Prefix Assignments [Ken Jongsma] Multi-Line Phones and Conferencing [Jack Winslade] Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Philadelphia Inquirer via G. Segal] Telecom Software [Sonny Shrivastava] Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting) [Robert Savery] US West Tests CLASS [Ken Jongsma, from the Telecom Privacy List] Re: Call Detail Recording [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Koontz Subject: Info Wanted on RS232 Port Selectors Date: 4 Sep 90 22:54:27 GMT Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA Does anyone have any information on RS232 port selecters? Basically, I have several dumb terminals that communicate to a host (Unix system) via a multiplexor. The mux is only eight channels, but I'd like more than eight terminals. Users should be able to log in on a first-come, first-serve basis. I do not have the option of adding more channels to the mux since the computer has no space left for any more physical ports. Thanks. John Koontz, V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 {attmail uunet}!vsi!john john@vsi.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Darden Subject: TDR Recommendations Date: 5 Sep 90 14:16:43 GMT Reply-To: Bill Darden Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA I would greatly appreciate recommendations on Time Domain Reflectometers (TDR's) that can be used for 10Base-T UTP, T Screened (or High Capacity) Twisted Pair, Coax used for Ethers and Twisted Pair for Token Rings. Thanks, BiLL ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Unusual Connections Date: 5 Sep 90 15:31:33 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <11654@accuvax.nwu.edu> Our Good Moderator writes: >[...] once a week I would see a very large truck parked in the >alley behind Orchestra Hall on Michigan Avenue. The truck was >inscribed "Illinois Bell Telephone Co". A large cable coming out the >stage door of Orchestra Hall ran into the back of this truck. Then it >came out of the truck, and down into a manhole nearby. Not dissimilar to what many cellular operating companies do for large sporting events, political rallies, and whatnot: Drive up in your base-site-in-a-truck, park it next to the stadium with the antenna pointing inward, and point the truck's microwave antenna back to the switch. A little extra capacity never hurts! Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 07:44:06 -0700 From: fico2!rca@apple.com Subject: Repeated Harrassing Calls I work part-time for a radio station in Santa Rosa, California, and lately we've had problems with repeated harrassing calls. Of course, there are the usual crank calls: "Sonoma and Marin County are to be evacuated due to a large toxic waste spill, announce it over the air as soon as possible so everyone can get out while I play my guitar to try to hold back the forces of darkness..." But we're used to those. We broadcast over a wide area using repeaters, so we have an 800 number for listeners to call in on so that they can easily reach us from any area code. Somebody's decided they're going to call that number, around five times an hour, with a "hangup" call. You know, like, "Hello, may I help you?" "Click." He/she did that for eight hours straight one day ... rather persistent, eh? The calls are usually grouped into pairs, one minute apart. I logged them one day, and they're irregularly spaced enough that I don't think an autodialer is being used. Sometimes this person gets REALLY dedicated and calls 50 times in an hour. I've heard complaints from people about automated salesdrone machines that don't hang up when you hang up on them, and which can still be heard wending their merry way through their sales pitch minutes later, when you try to call out. Can I do that, and will it work? Can I just lay the phone receiver back down on the counter and go back to work, knowing that the next time bozobreath picks up the phone, he'll hear nothing but the sounds of me slamming carts and scritching out log entries? I tried that last week, and the person DIDN'T CALL BACK, though that may have just been coincidence. I left the phone off the hook for about ten minutes, then put it back on hook. (We have three 800 lines on a hunt group, and no lights went on, so I know he/she didn't try to call in.) Any suggestions? Rick Adams UUCP email: (work) ...!apple!fico2!rca Delphi: RICKADAMS (home) ...!apple!fico2!ccentral!rickadams [Moderator's Note: If you 'lay the phone down on the counter and go back to work', you are going to be paying for an 800 call for however long the phone lays there! Instead, try to reconcile your monthly ANI. I assume you are getting a list of what calls you are paying for on the 800 number. Log the times for the harrassing calls, then compare your log to the ANI when it arrives. Look for repeated calls from the same number within minutes, etc. That might catch the caller! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Washington State Running Low Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:21:30 EDT From: Ken Jongsma This week's issue of {Communications Week} as an interesting blurb entitled "Area Codes Near Exhaustion." In addition to mentioning the forthcoming 917 code assigned to New York City, they mention that US West "is studying the possibility of restructuring dialing patterns so that additional prefixes become available." [in Washington state] Good grief! Well, let's see. That could mean just about anything now, couldn't it? Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Subject: 800 and 900 Prefix Assignments Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:25:18 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Also from this week's {Communications Week}: As of July, 794 out of 999 CICs ("exchanges") have been assigned for 800 numbers to 141 carriers. 286 CICs have been assigned for 900 numbers to 77 "providers." Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:16:03 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Multi-Line Phones and Conferencing Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 I want to thank all who replied to my query about the conference feature on the Panasonic phones. Although the bottom line is inconclusive, I'll summarize what I've received. > ..the conf feature is a JOKE!! Especially on speaker. Nobody can > hear anybody without shouting. The speakerphone sounds like calls > are coming from Mars! > The Panasonic KXT-3170 does NOT have amplification between the > lines while in a conference call. I have one. I am not all that > happy with it. Most people hate the way that I sound on the > Speakerphone, and this thing causes ***SEVERE*** interference(sp) > to my short-wave radio !!! I wish that I could get my hands on a > KXY-3160. Had one before ... it was great. Do you know of any > speakerphone with two or more lines that provides amplification ... > It's not too bad with all three lines going, so I'd say that it's > at least amplified. This weekend, I looked around at all types of phones with the 'con- ference' feature. Not one manual, and not one salesperson could answer my question. Manuals were >>VERY<< vague. Some sales droids were overwhelmed when I used the term 'conference', let alone such terms as 'bridge' and 'amplified'. :-( Having been involved with the hardware end of such things, I know that doing such things as bridging, amplifying, 2w<->4w, etc. from the subscriber end of the loop is about as close to a black art as you can get in the field of telephony. I am wondering if some of the new wonder-widget-hi-tech phones are able to provide 'real' conference calling or if they fake it by simply connecting one line to another to another. I can see that it might be possible to design a phone which could compensate for the variations in line characteristics and do a fair job of overcoming the losses between the far ends, but I saw phones with the 'conference' feature that were priced as low as $69 or so. I seriously doubt that they do much more in conferencing than the old trick of removing the 'cat' sliders in the key phones to allow more than one line key to be pressed at once. (Seriously, they must at least block the DC with capacitors or a cheap 1:1 transformer. Or do they ??? ;-) If anyone out there knows of multi-line phones that do a 'real' conference, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Thanks. Good Day! JSW --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4 [1:285/666@fidonet] CP/M, the virus-proof OS, Omaha -- --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story Date: 5 Sep 90 04:07:54 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division Reprinted from {The Philadelphia Inquirer}, Tuesday, September 4, 1990 "The Scene, In the Nation and the World" (News blips from allover). "Directory Unassistance" They'll be talking about Irnaless Stohrs in Portland, Ore., for some time to come. Her story combines all the elements of a true saga: an underdog (Irnalee), a cold unfeeling bureaurcacy (Portland's county court system); a provocateur (a local newspaper columnist) and hudreds, if not thousands, of sympathetic telephone callers (you, the teeming masses). Our story begins in 1959, when Irnalee got her telephone number. Several months ago, however, someone ordered new offical summonses for the county court system and put Irnalee's 31-year-old telephone number on it, right next to the words, "For more information". "The phone started ringing of the hook," Irnaleee recalled. Nearly everybody wanted to speak to somebody in the courthouse. When Irnalee called to complain, an operator gave her the run-around, refusing to even connect Irnalee to any officals. Irnalee continued to answer the phone each time it rang because she never knew whether it would be a friend or someone from her church. In desperation, she called Margie Boule, a columnist for the Sunday Oregonian. The columnist got nowhere with the county bureaucracy either. But Boule wrote about Irnalee's plight in her August 26 column. "Let's all pick up our phones Monday morning and call the correct number... Only when they answer, let's ask for Irnalee Stohrs." A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out, motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do their part, too. Well, as you can imagine, by 8:30 Monday morning the calls were so heavy that the juvenile court's phone system quickly broke down. The chief judge sent Irnalee an apology. They're going to print new summonses, and Irnalee got a temporary number until she can get her old number back. "I'm as happy as can be," Irnalee said. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2354 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ From: Sonny Shrivastava Subject: Telecom Software Date: 2 Sep 90 02:33:12 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/444 - BMUG, Berkeley CA I just bought Microphone II 3.0 for my new Hayes Ultra 96 modem. The software is good, but I find the screen response to be VERY slow (I have a IIci). I often find myself typing ahead of the display. I used ZTERM, and like its screen response, but I don't like the way the software works - not as nice and clean like Microphone II. I heard some stuff on Smartcom II, but it doesn't have ZMODEM protocol. Could I get suggestions from anyone on which telecommunications program is good, both in terms of quick screen response and functionality? What have your experiences been with various telecom software? Thanks! Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!444!Sonny.Shrivastava INTERNET: Sonny.Shrivastava@f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:14:19 EDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting) Reply-to: Robert.Savery@p5.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <31 Aug 90 14:32:06>, David Lesher (1:30102/2) writes: DL>{can you time up a dial-up line all month?} DL>|Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this? I've never heard DL>|of a maximum period of time for a phone call. I consulted my phone DL>|book, and the term it uses is untimed. DL>An alarm distributor once told me that Sonitrol {sp} tried this. They DL>offered an alarm system that triggered on loud noises inside the DL>buildings at night. Then the alarm office could listen, mike by mike, DL>to hear if it was an intruder, or a burping furnace. DL>To do they, they used standard dialup lines, and kept them open all DL>night, or all weekend. Ma took them up the court ladder, and won. I DL>suspect the tariffs have some catchall phrase about "abnormal use" or DL>such. Someone should tell Ma Bell about the hundreds of dial up lines the Postal Service is using for their data collection system. With the exception of equipment failures, many of these have been running for years. Last year I tested the installation of 15 sites that are reporting back to the main office by way of ordinary dial up lines, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Of course, Ma Bell might not want to get U.S.P.S. too mad at them. Imagine what would happen if phone bills started showing up late. ;-) Bob --- msged 1.99S ZTC [1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Subject: US West Tests CLASS Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:32:38 EDT From: Ken Jongsma [Moderator's Note: Copied from the new "Telecom Privacy" list, with permission of the Moderator there, Dennis Rears. PAT] From this week's {Communications Week}: US West Communications Group introduced CLASS to small business customers in Omaha, NE last week, kicking off a 5 month marketing trial ... US West is aiming the services, which include Caller ID, caller ID block, [...] at small business customers, will will provide them to other business or residential customers if they request them. Customers will pay between $3 and $8 a month for each service. [...]The caller ID service in Omaha will provide numbers only [US West has tested Name and Number] and blocking will be free of charge. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:32:16 CDT In volume 10, issue 617, John Higdon wrote: | Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All | numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"? If you do, you'll have to word it differently. I'd say more than 75% of the population would read that and think their *conversations* were being recorded. Better to say, "All telephone numbers dialed from this phone are logged." Note the changes of preposition and verb. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #621 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05957; 6 Sep 90 3:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25769; 6 Sep 90 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01274; 6 Sep 90 0:58 CDT Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 0:41:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #622 BCC: Message-ID: <9009060041.ab16286@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Sep 90 00:41:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 622 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Sam Drake] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeff Carroll] Re: Call Detail Recording [Mark Kallas] Re: Call Detail Recording [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [John Opalko] Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [A. J. Annala] Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Art Gentry] Re: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls [David Tamkin] Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Tom Ohmer] Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [P. Knoppers] Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [John Nagle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ibmarc!rufus!drake@drake.almaden.ibm.com Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 5 Sep 90 07:27:04 GMT Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center We got a call from a US Sprint salesperson about 3.5 weeks ago, asking us to switch (from MCI) to Sprint. We asked them to "put it in writing", and were told we'd get something in the mail. So far, nothing. Has ANYONE got it in writing? Anywhere? Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center Internet: drake@ibm.com BITNET: DRAKE at ALMADEN Usenet: ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake Phone: (408) 927-1861 [Moderator's Note: Sam, that was a television advertisement, not reality. They did not *really* expect anyone to ask for it in writing, let alone insist on it. In fairness to Sprint however, telcos do not like writing letters. Never have; never will. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 5 Sep 90 19:34:48 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) >writes: >>Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >>bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >>Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >>The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >>those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. >I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent >user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, >they will bill you through your local phone company. I think that it very likely depends on the local telco. I have been a Sprint customer since 1982, and I have always been billed by Sprint, even during months when the bill said "$0.00", which in my case was not uncommon for a few years. Moreover, I haven't heard of anyone else up here being billed for their Sprint accounts through USWest (for about one year of my Sprint-customer-hood, my local telco was General Tel of Indiana; for two other years, it was GTE Northwest. Otherwise PNB/USWest.) Neither would I be surprised if it were just that the Sprint billing department handles different accounts different ways, for no compelling reason. That would be consistent with my experience with Sprint. >So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard. I'm sure >that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and >ask them. Obviously you've never called Sprint to ask them anything else. (Read the other recent postings on this subject, which are corroborated by my experience.) > I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector >myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not >terribly concerned, yet. Good luck. Long time Sprint customers will remember the class action suit that was required to get Sprint to stop billing us for busy signals and no-answers. (Before I hear from the I-love-Sprint / I-work-for-Sprint / Sprint-would-never-do-me-wrong crowd, just let me say that I stay with Sprint because I like the idea of being able to call across the continent and have it sound like I'm just across town. When AT&T can claim an all-digital network, maybe I'll switch back.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: mark kallas Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: 5 Sep 90 10:30:06 GMT Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx. In article <11669@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: (some stuff deleted) >Well, what about it? Does anyone have the right to know what numbers are >dialed on his phone (including local)? What about big companies who run >SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in the lobby -- leaving a trail of his >calling card and what have you on the SMDR? The company supplying the service is responsible for paying for the call. They will get an itemized bill from the phone company for toll call. It seems clear to me that the provider has a right know who is dialing which numbers and how long the call was active. Many businesses ask employees to pay for non-business calls if they are billed for them. I also remember something about billable non-business calls on a business phone are actually a benefit which could be taxed by the IRS. So yes, the company supplying the service has the need to know how the phone system is being used. They are financially and legally responsible. Mark Kallas UUCP : texsun!digi!mkallas Internet: mkallas@digi.lonestar.org ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: 5 Sep 90 09:53:37 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. If you use the # (call it what you may) key at the end of your dialed phone number it will often but not always tell the 'system' there are no more dialed numbers. This certainly speeds international DDD, where there is an unknown number of digits to expect. The # generally also knocks off tone to pulse converters if they are present, and some SMDR units will stop capturing, too. You will probably find situations where adding the # will mess up your dialing, but it is worth a try if you are paranoid. ------------------------------ From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market Date: 5 Sep 90 02:34:52 GMT Reply-To: jgo@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle In article <11636@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsk@oldfield.cs.colostate.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 615, Message 2 of 9 [ Description of the Tess device for screening incoming calls. ] Sounds like the old American Bell "Telstar". I've got two of 'em. Not a new idea at all, I'm afraid... John Opalko jgo@mcgp1.UUCP ------------------------------ From: A J Annala Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Date: 2 Sep 90 07:15:02 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA The right of employee privacy in telephone conversations on employer owned equipment was settled a few years ago in a suit brought against one of the major air carriers. My recollection is vague, but I seem to remember an air carrier tried to dismiss a reservations employee for some kind of union organizing activity. The dismissal was based on surrepticious monitoring of an employee telephone conversation. The court ordered the employee reinstated ... with probable damages. Email is a bity more complicated. My gut reaction is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the employee in the absence of any official notice that email will be monitored. I also suspect outside individuals will have some right of action in the event their communications are intercepted. Frankly, I believe all email should be encrypted and not made available in any form to an employer without probable cause to believe a crime is committed. AJ Annala ------------------------------ From: Art Gentry Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls Date: 30 Aug 90 19:33:35 GMT Reply-To: Art Gentry Organization: Gentry and Associates In article <11480@accuvax.nwu.edu> AUGUST@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov (Richard B. August) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 606, Message 8 of 9 >Is there information available in the Archives or other repository >which mentions a movement of cellular telephone users to lobby the PUC >regarding the charging for "AIR TIME" in cellular systems? I am assuming from your Subject: line that you are speaking about charges for air-time on an unanswered or busy call. My cellular company does NOT charge for uncompleted calls. My air-time charges start at answer super- vision time, not at call placement time. The same applies for incoming calls, I am not charged for calls that I don't answer. Just FYI, my supplier is Cellular One. R. Arthur Gentry Gentry and Associates Excelsior Springs, MO 64024 Email: gentry@genco.uucp ATTMail: attmail!kc4rtm!gentry The UNIX BBS: 816-221-0475 The Bedroom BBS: 816-637-4183 $include {std_disclaimer.h} ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:08:01 CDT It surely is frustrating when someone who has to read email and netnews on his own time finds, in a single session's reading, that a subject newly reaching his attention (or having just reached his attention a day or two before without a chance to respond yet) has already generated so much reply traffic that Pat has proclaimed it closed. Very briefly, one thing about the problem that a PBX wouldn't allow 10XXX dialing to override the MCI default on an international call that MCI couldn't handle in the first place: if AT&T had an 800 dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls (instead of holding dearly to their belief that they are THE long-distance company and that use of AT&T should be automatic, with use if the competition requiring extra work), the matter would be strictly theoretical. The employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way to reach an AT&T operator. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 Date: 5 Sep 90 13:49:02 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In <11674@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >In article <11659@accuvax.nwu.edu>, root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. >Mongeon) writes: >> One problem that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to >> inform the front desk area when 911 has been dialled. >The PC (that I assume is) monitoring the SMDR port might be able to >also notice 911 calls and give special notice of any desired sort, but >it would be after the call is completed and logged. Still it would When I worked at BNR (R&D for Northern Telecom) I tested the Emergency Calling Feature on the DMS-250 and Centrex switches for Mercury (UK). As far as I can remember, there was a log output plus optional MMI Alarm whenever the emergency code (999 or whatever you programmed) was dialled, thus giving immediate notification of an emergency call. Of course, whether or not this feature is the same for the North American market and the SL-1 I cannot tell you. Adam Ashby | Most, if not all of the above (+1)(708) 632 3876 - work time | came from my mind...and not (+1)(708) 934 1431 - play time | even I have control over ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya | that. - madA 1990 ------------------------------ From: Tom Ohmer Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 5 Sep 90 17:23:39 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus From article <11671@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner): < In article <11620@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal Schwartz writes: < # If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can < # look up your address in the book, and rob you. < VERY good point. I am changing my answering-machine message forthwith. I did this, just the other day. I NEVER pick up my phone when it rings. At home, that is. My outgoing message used to be: "Hello, you have reached 239-9519. I'm either screening my calls, or I just can't come to the phone right now. After you hear the tone, please leave your name, day and time of your call, and a message. You will have about 30 seconds. Thank you." Now it is: "Hello, you have reached Tom at 9519 in Columbus. When trying to get me to answer your call if I am able, or when leaving a message, include your name, as voices are not easy to identify on the answering machine speaker. Also, include the day and time. Thank you." I realize that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to spend a little time and figure out what my full number is. I'm just not handing it out anymore. Any comp.dcom.telecom.outgoing.message.gurus care to improve on this? Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil Phone: (614) 238-8059 AutoVoN: 850-8059 Disclaimer claimed [Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience, this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there! Another machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do next." (Beep) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "P. Knoppers" Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe Date: 5 Sep 90 11:13:30 GMT Reply-To: Peter Knoppers Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrotechnical Engineering. >Toll-free numbers provide a convenient and cost-effective method for >businesses to stay in touch with customers. The drawback, however, is >they are inaccessible to anyone who happens not to be in the targeted >market area*. [The remainder of the article suggested that this might not be true] Well, it is true from the Netherlands. It is not possible to reach 800 numbers from this country. Apparently they are blocked in the international exchanges of PTT telecom, the Dutch phone monopoly holder. American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800 numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong), which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands. I believe that the toll-free numbers in this country can not be reached from abroad, so the "problem" is symmetric. P. Knoppers, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands, knop@duteca.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 22:40:00 pdt From: John Nagle Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA I suspect that such a service would be legal in the U.S. The difference between that and the lines run by some televangelists is slight. John Nagle [Moderator's Note: I really don't think I could start a 900 line and purport to be Goddess, without having the Federal Bureau of Inquisition breathing down my neck; freedom of religion and speech not withstanding. I know I'm simply divine :), but I don't think it would fly here either. I could offer prayers to Goddess; interpret and explain Her wishes; deny Her existence, i.e. "Dial The Athiest" in Austin, TX; but I don't think I could claim to be Goddess without running afoul of the law. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #622 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29905; 7 Sep 90 2:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22174; 7 Sep 90 1:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14249; 7 Sep 90 0:06 CDT Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:09:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #623 BCC: Message-ID: <9009062309.ab29335@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:08:53 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 623 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas [Jeff Hayward] What Kind of Switch is This? [Dave Levenson] Info Needed on Submarine Cables [Jeremy M. Harmer] Polywater A - Have You Heard of It? [Robert Kelley] Nevada Requires Free Caller ID Blocking [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Alain Fontaine] Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [David J. Birnbaum] Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Cliff Frost] Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [John Higdon] Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [George Merriman] Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Roger Cornelius] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Hayward Subject: SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas Date: 6 Sep 90 18:28:24 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Hayward Organization: The University of Texas From the September 6, 1990 {Austin American-Statesman}: PUBLIC NOTICE Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has filed an application with the Texas Public Utility Commission to introduce new optional services - Call Control Options. Call Control Options include six new services - Call Blocker, Call Cue, Call Return, Priority Call, Call Trace and Selective Call Forwarding. The Features will be available to single-line residence and business customers. CALL BLOCKER - enables the customer to block incoming calls from a maximum of three specified telephone numbers and/or to block the last incoming call. CALL CUE - enables the customer to automatically redial the last outgoing telephone number dialed. If the recalled number is busy, equipment will monitor the line for a maximum of 30 minutes and will let the customer know when the call can go through. CALL RETURN - enables the customer to automatically redial the telephone number of the most recent incoming call. If the number is busy, Call Return will continue to dial the number for up to 30 minutes, or until it completes the call. PRIORITY CALL - provides the customer with a distinctive alerting signal, ring, or Call Waiting Tone (if the customer has subscribed to Call Waiting), when the customer is called from a maximum of three preselected telephone numbers.* CALL TRACE - enables the customer to initiate a trace of the last incoming call received. The number, date and time will be recorded by Southwestern Bell Telephone so that the call's origin can be identified. SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING - enables the customer to forward incoming calls from specified telephone numbers (maximum of three) to another telephone number. Proposed Rates (monthly) Residence Business individual packaged individual packaged Call Blocker $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 Call Return 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.50 Priority Call 2.50 1.00 3.00 2.00 Call Cue 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.50 Selective Call Forwarding 2.00 1.00 2.65 1.00 Call Trace** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Installation charges for residence customers will be $2.70 per feature, with a maximum installation charge of $5.40 per request per line. Installation charges for business customers will be $5.40 per feature, with a maximum installation charge of $10.75 per request per line. The proposed effective date for Call Control Options is October 7, 1990. These services, however, will not be available to all customers in all areas. Customers should contact the Business Office for more information on the availability of these services in their area. Call Control Options are projected to generate first-year annual revenues of $1,900,000. Persons who wish to comment on this application should notify the commission by September 27, 1990. Requests for further information should be mailed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 400N, Austin, Texas 78757, or you may call the Public Utility Commission Public Information Office at (512) 458-0256 or (512) 458-0221 teletypewriter for the deaf. * Some telephone equipment may not be compatible with the Priority Call Service. ** In addition to the $1.00 monthly rate, Call Trace will cost $8.00 per use. Jeff Hayward jeff@nic.the.net The University of Texas System +1 512 471 2444 Office of Telecommunication Services ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: What Kind of Switch is This? Date: 6 Sep 90 12:25:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA A customer has a loop-start CO line (it happens to be the first in a small hunt-group) where outgoing service is normal. On incoming calls, the caller hears the ringback tone, but no ringing voltage at all is delivered to the line. Listening with a butt set (in monitor mode) when an incoming call is attempted, one hears absolutely nothing ... no clicks, no tones, and no ring power. But switch to talk mode, and you answer the incoming call and can converse with the caller. If the first line is in use, calls hunt to other members of the group, and those lines ring normally. I wonder if the CO is administered with none of the possible ringing options selected? (No, it's not tip party, it's not ring party, it's not bridged ringing, etc. None of the above? Don't ring at all!) The CO is probably a digital time-division switch of some kind, as there are no audible clicks or loop current interruptions when calling out. The access code is 516-234. The customer's site is in Central Islip, New York (which is on Long Island). Has anybody ever heard of this failure mode? Does anybody know the type of CO used by New York Telephone in those parts? The telco has promised to have somebody out today to look at the problem. I suggested to the repair bureau agent that they ought to look at the CO first, as the loop works normally for outgoing service, but what do _I_ know about it? Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 90 16:52:59 BST From: "Jeremy M. Harmer" Subject: Info Needed on Submarine Cables Can anyone tell me how I can find out the routes of all the submarine cables in the world (yes, I actually need it :-) )... Back on the subject of the '#' on keypads, an employee of British Telecom when giving a lecture on the use of a new phone system referred to this as "the GATE symbol"...! Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Robert Kelley Subject: Polywater A - Have You Heard of It? Date: 6 Sep 90 17:59:10 GMT Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR I recently heard of a product called "Polywater A". It's a slimy liquid used as a cable lubricant in the telecom industry, among other things. What is it made of? This is not to be confused with the bogus discovery of a supposed water polymer, years ago. Robert Kelley rjk@eng2.sqnt.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 13:58:41 -0400 From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Nevada Requires Free Caller ID Blocking The Nevada Public Service Commission approved Caller ID with two free blocking functions: per line blocking and per call blocking. The Commission said that protecting the privacy of residential customers was key to its decision. Centel wanted only free per-call blocking. Call Trace is cited as helping to reduce the future number of annoying, harassing, obscene, and threatening phone calls. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 90 09:28:03 +0200 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! >[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was >doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing >organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the >Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the >techniques being used. The organization may have not known how >obnoxious their agents were on the phone. PAT] Are you sure ? Would not punishing those who use the services of telemarketers by boycotting them be The Best Way to finally apply some pressure to the brakes ???? /AF [Moderator's Note: In a strictly commercial application, I would agree with you completely. In the case of the Sierra Club, I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt at least the first time. I think their good generally outweighs the bad associated with the telemarketing program. Call it my blind spot if you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David J Birnbaum Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful Date: 6 Sep 90 12:02:01 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In response to a complaint about abusive behavior by telemarketers working for the Sierra Club, our Moderator commented: >[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was >doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing >organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the >Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the >techniques being used. The organization may have not known how >obnoxious their agents were on the phone. PAT] With all due respect, it is the responsibility of the Sierra Club, or anyone else who farms out their telemarketing, to monitor performance and techniques. If the Sierra Club is going to hire someone to call their members, the Sierra Club has a duty to guarantee that those members will not be bothered by unethical behavior by these Sierra Club agents. They should care about such matters as much as they care about raising money through telemarketing. And they have an affirmative duty to know about and disapprove of the techniques in question. I don't belong to the Sierra Club, have never received a telephone solicitation from them, and don't mean to single them out. No company that hires telemarketers should be excused for those telemarketers' unethical behavior because the company "may not have known." David ------------------------------ From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! Reply-To: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 18:09:07 GMT In article <11732@accuvax.nwu.edu>, boulder!boulder!bobk@ncar.ucar.edu (Robert Kinne) writes: |> The callers have refused our request to take our name off the targeted |> list for their solicitations. |> [Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was |> doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing |> organization. I think the Moderator is right. You should let the Sierra Club know how bad these clowns were. My cousin worked for a telemarketing group for a couple of weeks until she realized the slime was so thick she had to get out. Apparently in California these organizations are required by law to turn over a whopping 10% of their take to the non-profit they are working for, and she doubts that compliance with this law is total. Where my cousin worked some of the best callers were drug addicts who were motivated to sound convincing on the phone and couldn't work any job where they had to regularly show up. They would come in and work until their commission was high enough to satisfy whatever needs they had at the moment. They might say just about anything. My policy is to never, ever, give money in response to a phone solicitation. When I like a group I donate directly, so 100% goes to the group. My sister, on the other hand, has worked extensively in non-profits and sees these folks as necessary evils. Even with only a 10% cut they do better than skeleton crews of volunteers. So, I think the best thing to do about these obnoxious marketeers is to let the non-profit know what they're doing. Then the non-profit will hire a different outfit -- apply market pressure without hurting the non-profit. Cliff Frost Central Computing Services UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable Date: 6 Sep 90 14:02:21 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Jay Libove libove@kamet.enet.dec.com writes: > [complaint about data/voice crosstalk] > Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and > correct a situation that they caused? They caused? If you are using standard red/green/yellow/black non-twisted pair IW then it is your problem. If they come in and fix it they have every right to charge YOU time and materials. Telco is not responsible for your interior wiring and they are not responsible for determining if your wiring is suitable for your intended use. I would be almost willing to guarantee that the crosstalk is not occurring outside of your premesis. Frankly, if you don't know what you are doing, then you should consider having someone come in and help you. It will be cheaper than having telco do it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: George Merriman -- CCA/NY Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable Date: 6 Sep 90 18:47:22 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <11734@accuvax.nwu.edu>, libove@lemans.det.dec.com (Jay Libove) writes: > Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire > typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might > actually occasionally interfere with my data communications. . . The standard TELCO four-wire cable known around here as "quad" (I've also known it as JKT) does NOT consist of two twisted pairs. I don't think the standard four-wire outside drop wire (black rubbery sheath with Copperweld conductors) does either. ------------------------------ From: Roger Cornelius Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable Date: 6 Sep 90 20:27:43 GMT Organization: Personal System Computing, St. Petersburg, FL From article <11734@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by libove@lemans.det.dec.com (Jay Libove): > Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire > typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might > actually occasionally interfere with my data communications, and is > always annoying (to both parties) on the voice line. > Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and > correct a situation that they caused? They knew before doing the > second line "installation" (just plug in a two-jack plate and split > the wires, $75, on top of $40 'line charge' !!!) that the line was to > be used for data communication. When I had my second line installed, I specifically requested a completely separate line coming off the pole because I had heard of problems like the above. The phone company didn't seem to mind, and there was no additional charge either. Some months later, someone pointed out that once my two lines connect to the pole, they're connected back to a single line -- with everyone else's in the neighborhood to boot. Makes sense to me, but then I know next to nothing about phone systems. I've never had a problem with crosstalk on either line, but that may only be coincidence. Does having the separate line really make a difference? Roger A. Cornelius rac@sherpa.UUCP uunet!sherpa!rac ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #623 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00488; 7 Sep 90 3:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22174; 7 Sep 90 1:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14249; 7 Sep 90 0:07 CDT Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:48:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #624 BCC: Message-ID: <9009062348.ab21065@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:47:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 624 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Steven King] Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Peter da Silva] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Sean Malloy] Re: Answering Machine Messages ["Hollywood" via Ed Horch] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Brian S. Oplinger] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Stan Brown] Re: Washington State Running Low [Randal Schwartz] Re: More Follow Me Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Peter M. Weiss] Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [David Schanen] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [John Macdonald] Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven King Subject: Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story Date: 6 Sep 90 13:48:02 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <11749@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) forwards a newspaper article: >A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out, >motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do >their part, too. >Well, as you can imagine, by 8:30 Monday morning the calls were so >heavy that the juvenile court's phone system quickly broke down. Oh oh! Now we've done it! We've gotta be on somebody's list as a bunch of dangerous hackers, able to take down a court's phone system on a whim. And since this was arranged over a computer -- worse, over a computer NETWORK -- we're probably a grave threat to the national security. Let us know when the Secret Service gets there, Pat. I wonder if they can confiscate the entire Internet? 1/4 :-) Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story From: peter da silva Reply-To: Peter da Silva Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: 6 Sep 90 13:04:00 CDT (Thu) > A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out, > motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do > their part, too. What do you suppose he means by that? Which version of "hacker" was he thinking of when he wrote that? Which version will the readers of his column think of? Will Tailgunner Joe pick it up? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: Who is this Tailgunner Joe person? I've seen a couple messages about him in news.admin but haven't paid attention. Will someone please explain it further? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sean Malloy Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 6 Sep 90 15:00:00 GMT Reply-To: Sean Malloy Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego >[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point >announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience, >this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will >never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your >name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you >called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return >your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there! Another >machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It >answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do >next." (Beep) PAT] I fell in love with an answering machine message from a recent 'Shoe' comic strip, and adapted it for my machine. It's arrogant, it's honest, and since putting it on my answering machine, the number of telephone solicitations has dropped off almost completely (one call in two months, when the previous rate was two or three every week): "Hello. You've reached Sean Malloy and Richard Campbell. We can't come to the phone right now, because we're listening intently to this machine to decide whether you're someone we want to talk with. So, at the beep, start talking. If we want to talk to you, we'll probably come on the line with some lame excuse, such as 'I was just on my way out the door when the phone rang.' If you get all the way through your message, and we don't pick up, it's because we don't want to talk to you." Sean Malloy Navy Personnel Research & Development Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 malloy@nprdc.navy.mil [Moderator's Note: Actually, I reprinted that Shoe cartoon here several months ago, but it is worth a repeat. Thanks for sending it in! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 9:52:08 EDT From: Ed Horch From Charles Bukowski's _Hollywood_: I decided to phone Francois Racine to see how he was doing. I got his answering machine: "Do not speak to me. Speak to this machine. I am nowhere and you are also nowhere. Death comes with his little hands to grip us. I do not wish to speak. Speak to this machine." The beep sounded. -Ed ------------------------------ From: "B. S. Oplinger" Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 6 Sep 90 12:17:25 GMT Reply-To: "B. S. Oplinger" Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY >[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point >announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience, I rather like my friend's: 'Eric not home. Leave message.' brian oplinger@crd.ge.com <#include standard.disclaimer> ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 6 Sep 90 20:34:24 GMT Reply-To: wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY In article <11763@accuvax.nwu.edu> nam2254%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@ dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) writes: # [Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point # announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience, # this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will # never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your # name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you # called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return # your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there! This is called "surrendering to the criminals." My friends may have to get a tape message when the call me -- at least they can have a friendly, cheerful tape message. # Another machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It # answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do # next." (Beep) PAT] I used to have one that said, "Hi, you know who I am, what this is, what it's used for, what to do, what to put in it, when to do it, and why. So do it. Bye." Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 90 11:30:00 EDT From: "BROWN, STAN" Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages >[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point >announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Arrgh! This sort of thing really ticks me off -- being INconvenienced is bad enough, but told that it's for my convenience goes beyond the pale! Why not be honest and say "For MY convenience"! Otherwise, I like this message. Thank you, I feel better now! Just for the record -- I am _not_ against answering machines. All I am saying is, don't pretend that it's for someone else's convenience. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. (216) 371-0043 The opinions expressed are mine. Mine alone! Nobody else is responsible for them or even endorses them -- except my cat Dexter, and he signed the power of attorney only under my threat to cut off his Cat Chow! ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 06:05:48 GMT In article <11746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wybbs!ken@sharkey (Ken Jongsma) writes: | This week's issue of {Communications Week} as an interesting blurb | entitled "Area Codes Near Exhaustion." In addition to mentioning the | forthcoming 917 code assigned to New York City, they mention that US | West "is studying the possibility of restructuring dialing patterns | so that additional prefixes become available." [in Washington state] | Good grief! Well, let's see. That could mean just about anything now, | couldn't it? Oh, it's probably pretty simple. We use 1+ to indicate long distance around here (assuming our neighbors up north use the same phone calling scheme as we do). It'd probably just be a transition to using 1+ to indicate an area code instead. [small segue now that I have your attention...] But for those of you that have already made that transition, how does that work on toll-restricting phones, like PBXs that block long distance calls? I mean, right now, I know that if I dial 635-nnnn (Lake Oswego) from here, I get an intercept, because it's long distance, so I have to redial 1-635-nnnn to get through. It makes me think twice. I cannot imagine just picking up the phone, and dialing some random unfamiliar seven-digit number, and having to pay long distance charges on it instead just because I didn't know. (My 1- calls are *much* shorter than my free local calls, and I like the added warning that the 1- provides.) Actually, let me guess. Are we one of the last few areas that still has free local calls? (If that sounds weird to you, *not* having free local calls sounds weird to me. :-) Has the rest of the world gone to these "message units" that I keep hearing y'all squawk about? Enough digression. I'm presuming that's what they were talking about... transitioning the 1+ from "long-distance" flag to "area-code" flag, and thus freeing up [2-9][01][0-9] for local exchange codes. Just another local phone caller, 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: 6-SEP-1990 04:37:02.36 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: More Follow Me Roaming Pat- I'm not sure about cell service in the Chicago area, but one can always dial *19 to cancel FMR from *ANY* FMR system. Thus, if I were to activate FMR in Boston, and then drive to Philadelphia, upon arriving in Phil. I could dial *19 and cancel it if I chose, or *17 ('my' version of semi-permanent Follow Me Roaming) or *18 to establish FMR in the Philadelphia system. A "*17" system should work EXACTLY like *18, except that it does not cancel out at 12AM. Otherwise, it is the same, and can be superseded by another "*17", a *18, or a *19 command while away from your Home system. Alternately, back in my home/GTE San Francisco system, I dial *720 (cancel call forwarding, *73 for most other systems), which also cancels it. (Although *19 seems to work in my home system as well...). The only way (at least that I can see) in which dialing "*17" can get you stuck so that you can't deactivate is if you activate FMR in a system and then roam to a new system that does NOT have FMR. (For example, I activate in Connecticut and drive to New York City, which still, believe it or not, does not have FMR!). This is a potential problem, but as more and more systems get FMR, it should greatly diminish. (Note that in such a rare situation I could just call customer service and have them deactivate FMR for me, which would allow callers to get my voicemail or the generic message that I am not in the area.) Moreover, even if "all" my calls did go to CT instead of NY, no big deal, as no one pays if I'm not in the area, so all callers will get is the message "The mobile customer you have dialed is not in the vehicle. Please try your call later.", which is pretty much the same thing they would get if FMR automatically deactivated at 12AM and my callers got the local GTE recording. (Unless, again, I turned on Voicemail, in which case callers wouldn't be able to get voicemail unless I specifically *19'ed the FMR system when I got back to CT or San Francisco.) So overall, it seems like a "*17" system is workable ... I mean, FMR itself isn't all that reliable, and there have been plenty of instances when the 12AM cancel period has caused service outages for me, so a *17 system, although creating a few potential (and minor) problems, could go a long way towards alleviating the 12AM "cancel-out" problems and also cut down on the number of Follow Me requests which FMR has to process. (IE, if I go to Denver, I press *17, and leave it that way until I leave. Thus, FMR no longer has to cancel me out every day, and doesn't have to reactivate me the next morning.) Oh well, it's just an idea...;-) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 6 Sep 1990 07:31:15 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls In article <11760@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gentry@kcdev.uucp (Art Gentry) says: >My air-time charges >start at answer supervision time, not at call placement time. The >same applies for incoming calls, I am not charged for calls that I >don't answer. Just FYI, my supplier is Cellular One. It is my understanding is this part of the globe that C-1 charges from the moment you hit the SEND key if (and only if) the call is answered. Otherwise, no charge. /Pete (pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu) [Moderator's Note: The same policy applies to Ameritech, the carrier I use. If a call is answered, then the charging is backdated to when you hit the send button. No answer, no charge for air time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! Date: 6 Sep 90 12:57:44 GMT Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing >[Moderator's Note: ..deleted stuff.. I don't think I could claim to be >Goddess without running afoul of the law. PAT] "Thou Art God" -Valentine Michael Smith from 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlein Internet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ From: John Macdonald Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Reply-To: John Macdonald Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. Date: Thu, 6 Sep 1990 09:25:10 -0400 In article <11700@accuvax.nwu.edu> our Moderator writes: > that's it! His dialing finger. [...] I understand to this day he > still has to place all his calls manually through the operator. PAT] ^^^^^^^^ Since he is no longer able to place his calls digitally, of course. John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 15:18:03 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu From: "P. Knoppers" >American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800 >numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong), >which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands. Nope ... people who have 800 numbers agree to pay for calls originating from certain areas (and often the entire US and Canada). they never agreed to pay for calls coming in from abroad. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #624 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01420; 7 Sep 90 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01543; 7 Sep 90 2:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22174; 7 Sep 90 1:12 CDT Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 0:33:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #625 BCC: Message-ID: <9009070033.ab26482@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Sep 90 00:33:27 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 625 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call Detail Recording [Robert Halloran] Re: Call Detail Recording [George Horwath] Re: Intercept Recordings [John R. Levine] Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Breen] Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Henry Troup] Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Dan Sahlin] Re: Repeated Harrassing Calls [Ron Newman] Re: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges [David E. Bernholdt] Re: Washington State, 800, and 900 [David Tamkin] Re: More Follow-Me Roaming [Doug Davis] Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Frederick Roeber] Re: What Kind of Switch is This? [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: 6 Sep 90 13:02:47 GMT Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <11757@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >If you use the # (call it what you may) key at the end of your dialed >phone number it will often but not always tell the 'system' there are >no more dialed numbers. This certainly speeds international DDD, where >there is an unknown number of digits to expect. The # generally also >knocks off tone to pulse converters if they are present, and some SMDR >units will stop capturing, too. I used to be in software development for a company in Rochester NY who made SMDR units for the Bell System, pre-breakup. I found soon after I started that there was a known bug in the unit's software that would reject any records that were not 7, 10 or 11 digits (1+ dialing was not so entrenched in '81). If the people reading the reports weren't checking the exception log, calls with extra digits slipped through. Punching the last digit of your number a few extra times was a common practice in-house :-). Bob Halloran Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording Date: 6 Sep 90 13:27:37 GMT Reply-To: motcid!horwath@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I always get a good laugh out of these postings describing surprise and/or outrage on the amount of "detail" captured by call detail recording on PBXs. The last time I worked on a PBX's SMDR was seven years ago and the only thing that limited the amount of information captured was what the customer was willing to pay for a program change. The hardware capability is there to collect every digit you dial from when you go off hook 'til on hook. Doesn't matter if you get answer, dial "#", or whatever. Just a matter of writing the software to do it and getting someone to pay for it! To start another thread - I hope no one out there believes those ads in the back of {Popular Science} or other such mags. You know, the ones that sell a device that turns on a red light when your phone is "tapped". George Horwath | Cellular Infrastructure Division ...uunet!motcid!horwath | Motorola, Inc. | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 6 Sep 90 13:06:01 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" To add another data point to this somewhat tired conversation, here is the intercept that you get if you dial my beach house during the winter, with line breaks approximating the phrasing. It's the longest one I've ever heard. "At the customer's request, 3-6-1 1-1-1-2 has been temporarily disconnected and calls are being taken by areacode 6-1-7 4-9-2 3-8-6-9." Then the whole thing repeats. Both phones are in my name, but in different states with different telcos. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) Organization: Monash_University Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:45:23 GMT > In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes: > ........ and we have lost some of > the margin we maintained for decades, but we are still far in front, [1] [2] I cannot see any evidence of the US net either having once had a margin, or of it still being "far in front". Admirable patriotism, Patrick, now how about some evidence. In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are: BEST: Japan WORST: India Jim Breen (ジム) (jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au) Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 11:01:05 CDT From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) >In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes: >>Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was >>deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States >>still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > From what I read daily in comp.dcom.telecom, the US definitely does >not have the finest or the most technically complex phone system in >the world. What have you based this sweeping statement on?? Surely >not the all important 'User Satisfaction'? >[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I >described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was >published in East Germany, Poland, Brazil or Haiti, what type of >messages would you see here from day to day? Admittedly, user I don't think that E. Germany, Poland, etc. are fair examples, which is why you you included them. How about the U.K., Eire, West Germany, Sweden and other (Western) European countries. My point was not to say that one country's system is any better than anothers, but to point out to you that in its phone system as well as other areas the U.S. is not still 'the best in the world', most other countries have caught up, the U.S. has been standing still for too long, and as long as it continues to ignore world standards and keep on going its own way, the U.S. will start to lag behind. The U.S. phone system is great, I can get service three days after ordering it, it can take forever in some parts of England, but it is no longer the finest and most technically complex phone system in the world. Just my opinion....I have *absolutely* no facts to back it up....Adam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 15:00:00 EDT From: Henry (H.W.)Troup Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) Sender: Henry (H.W.)Troup Message-Id: <90Sep5.150411edt.57361@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I >described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was Canada As still a holdout of monoply telephone systems we have: - excellent service (Bell Canada Ontario Region newsletters says: "There are no CRTC reportables (levels of service not meeting our regulator's standards), and we continue to achieve substantial gains in customer sensitive measures. Our Report Rate of 2.22 is almost 10 per cent better than last year. Similarly, customer complaints per 100,000 accounts of 12.5 for the year by June's end is an improvement of almost 20 per cent over the same period last year." - decent rates - real local service here (one Bell supplied phone, touchtone) is $15.50 Canadian (my data line) - very high percentage of the public that has phones (95+, I think) - an all digital toll network - the toll rate Ottawa to New York is $0.52 per minute prime time, dropping to $0.34 and $0.21 in discount periods. Ottawa to Toronto (500 kilometres) is $0.38/$0.25/$0.15 The discount is 35% 6pm to 11 pm Monday to Friday, and 60% 11 pm to 8 am Monday to Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday - and the headline in the Bell Canada newsletter is "Bell files proposal to reduce LD rates". Obnoxious net.canadian that I am, there's some hard numbers. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions available today uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 ------------------------------ From: Dan Sahlin Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 16:08:34 GMT In <11535@accuvax.nwu.edu> bellutta@irst.it (Paolo Bellutta) writes: >...are there other >countries that use prefix-place correlation like in Italy? Most contries in the world seem to have a prefix-place correlation, so North America is rather an exception to the rule (although it is a large one). In Sweden (as in most contries in Europe) the length of the area code is inversely proportional to the size of the city. So Stockholm is 08, Uppsala is 018 and Trelleborg is 0410. Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden email: dan@sics.se ------------------------------ From: Ron Newman Subject: Re: Repeated Harrassing Calls Organization: Lotus Development Corp. Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 15:52:22 GMT From article <11745@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by fico2!rca@apple.com: > We broadcast over a wide area using repeaters, so we have an 800 > number for listeners to call in on so that they can easily reach us > from any area code. Somebody's decided they're going to call that > number, around five times an hour, with a "hangup" call. You know, > like, "Hello, may I help you?" "Click." He/she did that for eight > hours straight one day ... rather persistent, eh? The calls are > usually grouped into pairs, one minute apart. I logged them one day, > and they're irregularly spaced enough that I don't think an autodialer > is being used. > Sometimes this person gets REALLY dedicated and calls 50 times in an > hour. Could it be that some computer or fax machine is repeatedly calling your number thinking it's a fax or a modem, then hanging up when it hears voice instead of a carrier? If this happened for eight hours straight one day, or happens 50 times an hour, it does sound like you're the victim of a misprogrammed autodialer, even if the calls are irregularly spaced. /Ron Newman ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt"