Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29025; 17 Sep 90 1:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03449; 17 Sep 90 0:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31699; 16 Sep 90 23:14 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 23:01:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #651 BCC: Message-ID: <9009162301.ab13978@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Sep 90 23:01:29 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 651 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI As Slamming King [Dave Archer] Re: Sprint Puts It In Writing: On Your Bill! [Henry Mensch] Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications! [Peter G. Capek] Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Larry Lippman] Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Breen] Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! [Lance Ware] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Jim Gottlieb] Re: What Kind of CO is This? [Dave Levenson] Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier? [J. Eric Townsend] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Archer Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King Date: 16 Sep 90 19:40:23 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <12195@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes... >>From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king. I have, >>on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the default carrier >>on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine report the same ... I've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees. Such as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of a job". This might explain alot. And as far as MCI, it could just be they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other companys do. BTW, I've not had any problems with MCI bothering me. In fact, the only time I remember MCI calling me, I could barely understand the person with all the static and buzzing and such. Sounded more like the call was coming from the moon during solar flare season. Not exactly very impressive. This was several years ago however, I would assume things are better, or at least hope that they don't call from the moon anymore. :) (I have however, had two people from AAA drive over and insist that I had ordered a membership while I very much recalled having told the telemarketer a month earlier that I wasn't interested, although I still have no idea how they knew my liscense plate number.) Note: I do not represent my employer or school, & sometimes not even myself. Dave Archer | Internet: V116KZND@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU | Bitnet: V116KZND@UBVMS.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 15:54:48 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Organization: MIT Project Athena Network Services Evangelist Subject: Sprint Puts It In Writing: On Your Bill! They did, indeed ... for the WD40 promotion, it took four phone calls to get them to apply the free hour credit that I 'won' in the promo, and then four more phone calls to get two "non-recurring" $10 charges stricken from my account ... not to mention that things stricken from my account showed up on the next statement because (according to the Sprint CSR) it may take up to 45 days to appear on the statement. Right. That's all the writing I needed to see ... I had hoped things would have gotten better since I last used Sprint regularly, but I see they haven't. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 16:01:35 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications! In recent postings, Will Martin and Dave Levenson have commented on the first use of telephone lines to transmit data. If what is really meant here is tranmission of digital data over voice phone lines, I believe the "first" may be around 1953 or '54; I've been unable to determine the exact date. The SAGE project, a joint effort of IBM, Lincoln Labs (an adjunct of MIT which was established for the purpose) and the Air Force claims a number of "firsts", among them this one. I quote from "History of the Design of the SAGE Computer - the AN/FSQ - 7" by Mort Astrahan, IBM Research Report RJ 3117, 1981: "Highlights of ...these innovations: Data communication over standard phone lines: The transmission of digital data over voice-grade lines at 1300 bits per second was pioneered by the Lincoln [Labs] people. Jack Harrington's group of Division 2 designed the first modems to convert digital data to and from analogue waveforms that could be accommodated by voice-band channels. The channels required special conditioning to minimize noise pickup and eliminate unequal phase shifts across the frequency spectrum. The phase shifts were not noticeable in voice transmission but distorted the data waveforms." By the way, Astrahan claims other "firsts" for SAGE: Light Pens (which he calls Light Guns; this was a military system, after all :-) ), time-sharing (which might better be thought of as multiprogramming), I/O in parallel with computing, associative memory implemented using drums, hot-standby duplexing, core memory in a production machine, computer control of voltage margins, and components automatically mounted on and soldered into circuit boards. Peter Capek ------------------------------ Subject: Splitting Call Transmission Directions Date: 16 Sep 90 10:54:09 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article <11532@accuvax.nwu.edu> dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl (Dolf Grunbauer) writes: > 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? Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit. Control of echo on intertoll circuits can be implemented by simple attenuation in the trivial case, and voice-switched attenuation through echo suppressors in the more common case. The proper design of intertoll circuits, including configuration of echo suppressors, is governed by the Via Net Loss (VNL) concept. VNL design requires knowledge of propagation delay in milliseconds. At the time I was involved in the telephone industry, the VNL design with which I was familiar imposed a maximum of 22.5 milliseconds propagation delay to a DDD switching midpoint, with an maximum overall delay of 45 milliseconds on any given DDD circuit. It was always a "given" that VNL design required the same propagation delay in each direction. While I admit that I have no firsthand experience with intertoll circuits involving satellites or transoceanic cable, I would find it difficult to believe that any satisfactory transmission (and echo) performance could be achieved with the E-W and W-E directions that have widely *differing* propagation times. Obviously, satellite transmission by its very nature imposes propagation delays which far exceed 45 milliseconds. However, echo suppressors and intertoll circuit design can be set up to deal with such increased propagation delays - *provided* that the delay is equal in each direction. Also, I can think of no valid reason to split E-W and W-E routing between different transmission facilities. *ALL* transmission facilities used for intertoll circuits are, by their very nature, bi-directional. While I have seen all sorts of route diversity and failure protection switching, I have never seen anything that split transmission directions through different facilities. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) Organization: Monash_University Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 00:09:48 GMT In article <12064@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes in support of comments by John Higdon disagreeing with my vote: > >> > In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are: > >> > BEST: Japan > >> Bzzzzt! Wrong -- but thanks for playing anyway. > >> * About one out of ten calls bomb (don't go through). > >Not on my observation. > I would say it may even be higher. ...... [etc.etc.etc.] At this point I crawl back under my stone. I could try and argue point by point, but anecdotal "evidence" isn't worth much anyway. I suppose I will just have to accept that I lead a charmed existence when in Japan, whilst in the US I just happen to get more than my share of lousy lines, rude operators, failed connections, international lines with broken eco-suppression, etc. etc. > >Jim Breen ($B%8%`(J) > Ahh, but he has Japanese in his .signature. That increases his > qualifications a bit. $B$"$"!"F|K\8l$,>e Subject: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! Date: 16 Sep 90 16:26:47 GMT Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I've got an annoying situation on my hands. All four of my incoming phone lines suffer from intermittent cross talk. It seems to be worse when it is wet outside, but that is definitely not always the case. I have had the phone company out numerous times, and they say it is inside the house (of course.) I have had the alarm/electricians out, they say it is the phone company (of course.) And I myself have checked out the connections at the entrance to my house (looks fine, infinite resistance between all eight wires, with the incoming lines and phones disconnected.) I have also looked in the phone company's green box, which is about ten feet from where the lines come into my house. The only possibilites which I can think of are: The cables between the house and box are bad. (Unlikely though because they are < one year old.) One of my two line phones is causing the problem. (This is a possibility because when things really get bad, and voice line #1 rings so does #2 even though there is no call on that line. But my other lines, FAX and modem still have x-talk and they are in no way connected to the two voice lines.) The Telco's equipment is screwed up somewhere. (Good possibility.) In my basement I have two punchdown blocks, where all telephone cables come to; it is pretty tangled. I have a network running over twisted pair to a few rooms in the house, and one incoming line to an alarm box far away and then comes back allowing the alarm to sieze the line. All of the rooms in the have both voice lines, which I assume are all wired in parallel because only to pairs are connected to each incomming voice line, and one pair on each goes to a jack I installed. This situation is getting annoying, and has cost me quite a bit for no solution. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fix it? How would I check my phones to see if they are the problem (besides buying new ones)? Is there a way I can check the internal wiring for shorts? Any help, comments or suggestions are welcome. Thanks in Advance, *W .L. Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 16 Sep 90 22:39:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <12159@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: [description of telco employees listening in to calls] >But of course, NOBODY ever listens in on YOUR calls...why, the Company >would NEVER permit that! >[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a >major violation of trust; I always laugh when I hear telephone company spokespeople make the (expected) claim that their employees would never ever listen in to calls. Everyone I know who has ever worked in a central office has great stories about the calls they listened in to. The employees in the central offices serving Beverly Hills, for example, often liked to put famous people's lines up on the C.O. loudspeakers. I hear Lucille Ball's were pretty fun to listen to. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: What Kind of CO is This? Date: 16 Sep 90 23:08:34 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In an article posted last week, I described a CO line failure in which inbound calls did not ring the called line, even though the calling party was given audible ring tone, and even though the called party could answer the call and converse with the caller, if he/she knew there was in incoming call. Three times this was reported to NY Tel, and two times the promised repair-by date passed with no apparent change in the situation. On the third call, the repair-service agent took all of the details again, asked when somebody would be at the customer location (it's attended around the clock, seven days per week) and promised that somebody would be there the next day. I advised the agent that I was reporting a CO trouble, and that it would probably not be necessary to dispatch anybody to the customer site. Next day, I got a call from a NY Tel craftsperson at the customer site. He wanted me to tell him what was wrong ... said he got dial tone on the line. I told him to try calling the line from another line, and listen for ringing. He did, and then told me, in a rather astonished manner, that there was no ringing -- that the number assignment must be wrong. I suggested that he try answering the line that wasn't ringing. He did, and discovered as much as I then knew about the situation. He then told me that I was wasting my time with him; that it was a CO trouble. I told him that I'd already given that much information to the repair-service agent. An hour later, the trouble was cleared. Thanks to all who replied. I gather that the CO is an AT&T 5ESS, and that Larry Lippman was probably right - that the line circuit pack was probably defective. 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: Sun, 16 Sep 90 19:30:37 CDT From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier? In a propaganda class the other day, we were watching an episode of Nightline. It was full of Sprint's "Lighten up, AT&T" series of adverts. My question is this: Could AT&T, if it wanted, decide to attack carrier X? ie: "Carrier X says they give you better prices, but it's not true. AT&T is much cheaper." Or are they somehow legally required to say: "Some other carriers say they give you better prices, but it's not true."? 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: Although most successful advertising consists of positive statements about one's own products rather than negative comments directed to one's competition, there is no law they cannot advertise their competitor's shortcomings if they wish to do so, naming those shortcomings specifically; libelous and slanderous statements excluded, of course. Please note also the courts have ruled there is a big difference between 'free speech' when citizens speak it, and 'commercial speech'. Some fine points of law might apply. Inquire in misc.legal. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #651 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00314; 17 Sep 90 2:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08907; 17 Sep 90 1:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03449; 17 Sep 90 0:17 CDT Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 0:10:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #652 BCC: Message-ID: <9009170010.ab27497@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Sep 90 00:10:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 652 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Leland F. Derbenwick] ANI and CO Call Data Recording [Larry Lippman] Caller ID Technical Intros Sought [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Subject: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!) Fischer writes : > ... he was incredibly hostile! He said every time he called, >"some fax machine or something" answered the line. Now he's >really hostile! "You are using a standard dial tone line, what you >get is what you get ... If you want a data line, pay for it. You >people abuse the system, but it's gonna change..." Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point. I just wanted to make the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.) His _modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line. The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing his job, and if he can get you to swallow it, not only will he get rid of the problem of having to do some work, he'll even get you to pay extra to get the work done. (WHEN are Americans EVER going to learn about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?) Fortunately, you clung to some reason he could not deny, so you were able to make him do his job. Lo and behold: A plain old POTS line good enough to talk on is good enough for your modem. Amazing fact! (You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!) >What is this data line he referred to, how much does it cost and is >it really necessary to get one for modem use? Is there any way Bell >can determine if a line is used exclusively for data? The flim-flam here is one that local Telcos have even gotten the imprimateur of regulatory approval for; more's the pity. I don't know which one started it, but in their classic style of ripping the people state by state, keeping the general public in the dark that it's going nationwide, they file tariffs to "add" some "special conditioning" or "special treatment" to your old POTS line for a price that ranges from about $2.50 to $8.00 a month, depending on which Telco is your local rip-off agent. Oh, you'd pay the usual $50 or so worth of service order and "installation" charges, too. The real rip-off behind it is that what you get is a guarantee that the noise level, frequency response and envelope delay of the piece of cable from your premises to the Telco exchange meets the very same limits it is supposed to meet before they EVER use that cable for POTS service! That's right: Pay them extra to get them to meet their own limits for every dial-up phone line they ever put in! How's that, Telecomm sports fans? (For those into jargon, the numeric limits are the SAME as those for "acceptance testing" new subscriber cable; the tests they were supposed to do when they put the cable into service.) You proved to yourself you don't need that extra cost to make a modem work, and the tariff they sell it under has NOTHING to do with the volume of traffic or the nature of your messages. It merely guarantees they will do the job they are supposed to do. Why does your modem work OK? Simply because those self-same numeric limits they are supposed to meet for a POTS line are what the Telco industry tells modem makers their lines ALWAYS meet ... whether you paid extra or not. So, no you don't need it, unless you cave into letting them snow you into buying something they should have done in the base price; something they tell the modem makers (and indeed the PUC) they do for EVERY line. There are a number of ways they MIGHT find you use it exclusively for data, but all involve making the effort to "snoop" about what you are doing ... guessing from the length of your calls or investigating to find the number you dial is a computer; actual eavesdropping at length to hear nothing but tones every call you make, or calling the number themselves as did the cretin Illinois Bell sent to you. But, the BIG point is, they can't REQUIRE you to buy it. You can, as you did, stand on some rights to get them to do what they are always supposed to do and assume for yourself the responsibility that your modem will then work ... which it was in fact designed at their advice to do. >The whole deal kinda smells bad to me. You're absolutely right. It stinks to high heaven, and I hope you have the time and gumption to sit down and write a complaint letter in detail to the Illinois PUC, detailing not only the actions of the employee, but also the fact that you have an FCC-registered device that has been certified to operate properly on an ORDINARY line (RTFM and quote its applicable passages, which it is certain to have), and tell the PUC that they should be investigating WHY Illinois Bell charges extra for something they should be maintaining for ALL lines. Big Brother is really too slothful to mark your record card, but you can bet such a letter will get you about a hundred phone calls from all sorts of insects in the woodwork who will want to be your friend from now on, giving you their secret phone number and telling you to please call them directly for ANY future trouble you have. Your investment at this point to let them know you are a tough cookie will lead to a long period of excellent telephone service. You'll be a "special person" to all of them! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 21:12:52 EDT From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: (In reply to and quoting some email I sent him. Since he's made it public, I feel I should reply in public. These are my own personal comments, as I am in no position to speak for AT&T on this -- I'm not even involved with the long-distance side of the business.) > lfd@lcuxlq.att.com (Leland F Derbenwick) writes: > > Would you mind posting a description of those "monopolistic advantages" > > that AT&T "still enjoys"? > The large inventory of switching equipment that ATT has and their > practice of giving it away in order to win contracts. Isn't some of > this inventory leftover from the monopoly days? I most sincerely hope not. It costs big bucks to store and pay the interest on investments in non-productive inventory. And end-user equipment from the days when the IBM XT was a _really good_ PC is hardly going to be worth much these days, anyhow. > ATT's enormous cash and capital reserve is a leftover from the > monopoly days and allows them to outspend their competition when it > comes to advertising and shmoozing cusomters, as well as allowing them > to give away equipment in order to win bids. Note that the FCC and > Judgefolk decided that these things are not in violation of > divestiture. My opinion obviously doesn't carry much weight on this > legal issue! (Not the first time!) Our capital reserve is essentially all invested in our network, our factories, and our offices, and I don't know of any huge cash reserve. (If we had one, I doubt if we'd have cut our workforce from about 400,000 employees at divestiture to somewhere around 270,000 today.) And I may just not have kept up with the news, but I haven't heard about any great giveaways. Sorry. How about a fact or two, rather than unsubstantiated accusations about huge hoards left over from more than six years ago? Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd ------------------------------ Subject: ANI and CO Call Data Recording Date: 16 Sep 90 10:42:53 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article <11739@accuvax.nwu.edu> den0@midway.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) writes: > In the process of recording information for billing, are there any > times when the originating or destination number is not recorded? It depends upon the type of central office, the type of message accounting apparatus (if not an ESS CO), and the policy of the operating telephone company for a particular CO or CO region. Nothing like a *specific* answer, huh? :-) Unfortunately, as far as I know, this situation really varies all over the map. > 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. Hey, you've been around! :-) Tone identification was only used in ANI-B; the later and far more common ANI-C and ANI-D all used 340 volt 200 microsecond pulses instead of the tone. > 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? From what I have seen of ANI-C and ANI-D, there were two schools of thought that were *both* implemented: (1) send the actual line number and let revenue accounting sort it out; and (2) wire the ANI number network cards to send only a pilot billing number. When anyone ever asked my opinion, I always recommended (1) since it always provided more data in the event that troubleshooting was required. > 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. Many operating telephone companies, including the RBOC's, record *all* of the call data in an ESS CO and keep it around for as long as six months on mag tape - although they might not publicly admit such a practice. This situation represents the ultimate in traffic usage recording and analysis. It's also pretty cheap insurance for billing dispute and toll fraud matters. This is really not that much data, and it's easy to sort out on a "straight line" basis for actual revenue accounting purposes. Consider that as a typical example, a 10,000 line CO making 20 calls per day per line (quite a bit of traffic, btw) will only generate between 10 and 15 megabytes of raw accounting data per day. That's for full, raw call data collection of even incompleted calls. One 6250 bpi mag tape reel can readily store 10 days or more data. > Hmmm. I suppose that it is, unfortunately, improper to refer to SxS > in the past tense. There's still a lot of SxS around in the boonies - even in RBOC territory! Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ ¥aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Caller ID Technical Intros Sought Date: 17 Sep 90 04:11:30 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I am interested in learning about the basic technology of Caller ID. I am not an engineer, and need to start with a fairly simple overview. I also would like to continue to more technical readings once I get my feet wet. I would like to get perhaps trade press cites of articles on the technology of Caller ID. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Summarizing the story thus far: In a footnote > "... some children, phreaks and assorted other folks consider it >>quite a funny joke to conference two unrelated parties via >>three-way calling, then let them (the two called parties) squabble >>with each other while the perpetrator goes spastic with laughter >>at his little prank. PAT]" This writer responded in an article in Digest V10, Issue 646, describing three incidents of internal phreaking that occurred in the monolithic era. They included connecting two inward operators in Puerto Rico and Hawaii to each other; listening in and engaging some lewd conversation on an intercity FX, and interposing as God on DDD trunks. Our Moderator was rightfully irate about such abuses, saying: >[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a >major violation of trust ... No doubt about it, Dear Moderator. The point in exposing this to you was to show just how widespread such abuses were in the "good old days." As to the employees getting caught, my recent comments about a benign, complacent environment of employees and managers didn't seem to be understood. In the cases cited here, supervisors and managers would as often be part of it as not. The ONLY case of an employee who ever got caught was one who was feeding horse race results from the telegraph channels to the bookies. He only got caught because the FBI caught the bookies and traced it back to him. Despite his being clearly identified and his part of it making national press, he merely got transferred off the telegraph board over to the toolroom 50 feet away, and enjoyed the rest of his admittedly promotionless career to retirement on the phone in the toolroom. I never saw him walk back to the telegraph board to read the race results. By the time I came on that scene, he was running a sales operation for bridal hope chests and kitchenware from that phone..of course, on the public's "expense" for operating the monolithic "phone company." ... just another form of violation of the public trust. You've queried in one place why we would EVER have broken up AT&T and caused ourselves all the problems we now have. The purpose was to give you some evidence of just how far from the public trust the monopoly establishment had wandered ... and in a myriad of ways the anti-trust court case never even got to. None of these stories was unique. The people in that office weren't the first. Such "tricks" were going on all over the country. If you want a whole book full of them, I can supply them. Just square the issue for our less sophisticated readers' paranoia, rest assured that today, a combination of (digital) technology and reduced profit margins makes it far, FAR less likely that such things continue. It's just not so easy to get into a digital timeslot, and there aren't enough idle employees hanging around any more to engage such games. Why, indeed, should we ever have broken up the Bell monolith? How is it we have so many unforeseen problems to solve? Why, indeed, do we find so many scammy practices and people involved? The answer is simple; Rot had penetrated far deeper than anyone on the "outside" might imagine. And last point: Why on earth would they be so quick to recognize misuse of the network? What's the old conundrum ... it takes one to know one? Pin them down to how much personal practice they have had at doing it. I doubt there's a former local exchange switchman in this nation (and most countries) who hasn't engaged in some international calling "phreaking!" Diogenes' lantern would have failed inside the monolithic Telco, too. Why do you think I left them? Why do you think I bring these tales up now decades later? Simple ... I still feel a sense of outrage at informing you of them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #652 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25499; 18 Sep 90 3:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19046; 18 Sep 90 1:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13039; 18 Sep 90 0:25 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 0:13:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #653 BCC: Message-ID: <9009180013.ab20915@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Sep 90 00:13:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 653 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Larry Lippman] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Tony Davis] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [David Schanen] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [John Debert] Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Telecom In Alaska [Brian Crawford] Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Martin Harriss] Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! [John Higdon] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeffrey C. Halle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Date: 17 Sep 90 23:31:41 EDT (Mon) From: Larry Lippman In article <12159@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > Well, it brings to mind three incidents that I guess can now be > told: [recollections of sheenanigans by Long Lines personnel deleted] > [Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a > major violation of trust; and I'm sure you are aware that had the > employees involved in this little prank been caught and the > subscriber's involved elected to sue, telco would have had to pay > financially and the employees involved probably would have lost their > jobs. PAT] Humor is a very subjective concept. Almost every industry, profession and vocation has inside humor and humorous escapades which would be abhorrent to the general public if disclosed. I cannot justify or particularly defend the actions of such Long Lines craftspersons as related in the previous article. However, I can state from experience in the industry that such antics have indeed occurred in the past, are occurring at the present, and will continue to occur in the future. Such antics will always occur because of *human* nature. I have to admit that *I* found humor in the previous article. I must also admit that as a one time member of a secret fraternity known as The Telephone Company :-), I, too, have participated in similar antics. While I am not inclined to disclose details of my own sheenanigans in this forum, I suppose that I owe Telecom readers *some* kind of story from my past, so here goes: Once upon a time there was a young engineer supervising the installation of an expansion to an existing SxS CO which served a small city in the middle-of-nowhere. Said engineer and a solitary Western Electric installer were bored to tears after being in said small city for the better half of a month. Since it was common knowledge [there were two people in the city who didn't wear cowboy boots at all times :-)] that the CO was being upgraded to include such newfangled features as direct distance dialing without having to give the operator your calling number :-), we figured that we could have some fun by causing some temporary, but "creative" wiring "errors". Aided by couple of 106-type loudspeakers, we decided to monitor the results of some connector terminal assignment errors. Like crossing the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant with the major undertaking establishment in the city. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ ¥aerion!larry [Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must have really split your pants open with laughter at that one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony Davis Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 17 Sep 90 08:32:30 GMT Reply-To: Tony Davis Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science In article <12230@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: [Deleted discussion of abuse during Ma Bell's monopoly.] >Such "tricks" were going on all over the country. If you want a >whole book full of them, I can supply them. Please post some of them. I'd like to hear both your story and our Moderator's. What are the arguments for and against the breakup of AT&T? Tony Davis ted@cs.brown.edu [Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up, that's for sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 17 Sep 90 08:43:03 GMT Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing >..... it was a favorite pastime to dial 809+121 (San Juan, >Puerto Rico) and 808+121 (Honolulu, Hawaii) and let two Ernestines of >the Lily Tomlin era argue about which had called which and what they >were supposed to do. Meantime, gales of laughter could be heard >around the monitoring loudspeaker in a testroom thousands of miles >from either of them! >[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a >major violation of trust.... PAT] This reminds me of the time I worked for a company that had a ten button set at the receptionist's desk with a broken mechanism allowing you to push several lines at once. Every now and then I would hit all ten lines and call 800 directory assistance. :) Dave Internet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv [Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you still think it is funny? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 17 Sep 90 08:32:30 GMT Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} From article <12230@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin): > Just square the issue for our less sophisticated readers' paranoia, > rest assured that today, a combination of (digital) technology and > reduced profit margins makes it far, FAR less likely that such things > continue. It's just not so easy to get into a digital timeslot, and > there aren't enough idle employees hanging around any more to engage > such games. What's to keep the folks at the SCC's from eavesdropping? The SCC's are staffed around the clock and have the power to listen in on all calls in the Bell network as well as the power to kill dialtone and battery. (I once received a call from someone who told me to "stop doing it" and afterward I was without dialtone for an hour or so. I later found out that someone at the Richmond (CA) SCC had done it but I never found out why.) The frames may no longer have anyone in them but there is always someone "in the network". jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I had a guy in the Chicago-Wabash CO rip me off once many years ago (1974). He ran my bill up several hundred units two or three months in a row before I caught on, making calls by going on my line in the frames. I guess he figured because my number ended in /00/ (WEbster 9-4600) it was a large company and I would never notice the difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System Date: 17 Sep 90 16:17:37 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <12142@accuvax.nwu.edu>, matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) writes... >First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I have many >friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed and it is a pain in >the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. I know people who before Rolm >to dial a operator you would dial '0' , but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0. >Also, I thought that 'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network. To be fair, Rolm systems are not "monsters"; they are, however, moderately difficult to program and use. Thus if they are not carefully installed by somebody sympathetic to human factors, they can be a bear. A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible with any standard telephone. Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS interfaces aren't. I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines. No sweat. What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user, even with a 2500 set, to have more features than any other set's 2500 set. It's a 'two call' model, totally non-standard. Once you learn it, you can do a lot. But hardly anybody ever seems to learn it. The engineers who designed it in 1974 enjoyed it, probably for its hack value. The Rolmphones with lots of buttons are easier to use, thankfully, but of course you then need a second (analog) line for your answering machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Telecom In Alaska Date: 17 Sep 90 19:53:01 GMT Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe In article <12106@accuvax.nwu.edu>, judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice) writes: > I recently took a vacation in Alaska (mostly the interior areas), and > was fascinated by the question of how telecom services are provided > there. Just happened to go there myself: Attended High School in Wasilla during the late 70's / early 80's. > In the cities (Fairbanks and Anchorage) it appeared as though the > local telcos were municipal utilties. One odd thing - the phone book > contained (in both cities) a two page set of instructions on what to > do in the event of a nuclear attack - something I can't remember > seeing in a while. Don't suppose the Anchorage Telephone Utility is still charging ten cents for a pay phone call, are they? They were still that low long before the 'lower 48' went to 25 cents in most places! If I remember correctly, my CO, Matanuska Telephone, was considered a "Non-Profit Organization" > As a former RCA-er, I know that Alaskcom, the long distance carrier in > Alaska was formerly part of that great old company. I seem to recall > it being sold to a west coast power utility in the early 1980's. Yep. PP&L bought them out in 1980. Recently, Gencom (or something else, I can't remember the exact name) took Alaskcom to court over getting the right to offer long distance service per equal access and won. Phone service up there was always a little unique and was somewhat different than the Bell System before the diversture. They leased an entire RCA F# satellite back then. First it was F1 I think just after RCA F2 was first launched. It's been a long time. One benefit to Alaskans of this was all U of Alaska campuses and community colleges had email ties to each other for student use way back then, before these networks really hit it big. Brian ------------------------------ From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK Date: 17 Sep 90 21:33:40 GMT Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Organization: Bellcore In article <12193@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: >Now the technical stuff. Her local exchange (CO) which is a >TXE-4 (Reed relay job) now has itemised billing. So they obviously >have records of outgoing calls. I also recall a court case I sat in on >in Lambeth Magistrates court, this was in 1967. The prisoner was >accused of "Stealing electricity". His actual offence was calling the >emergency services - 999 (UK equiv of 911 that goes back to the >forties). But annoying the emergency services is on the cops home turf >and is more important to them than some poor soul being woken at one >in the morning to hear an anatomical inventory. Obviously if they >could trace calls then, they can trace calls now. In the old days, >special equipment had to be placed on lines in the CO to trace a call >and sometimes an engineer had to be present. But today with computers >and electronic switching, no one has to be around while the call is >going through. 999 (and for that matter 100, for the operator) is a special case - it's not like a normal call. When an operator answers, the circuit is held all the way back to the calling phone. Even if the call is coming from another exchange, special equipment will hold the call over the junction (operator calls often use a different set of circuits than normal calls). The only way to release the circuit is for the operator to pull the plug or throw the release key. This 'Manual Hold', as it is known, has been BT/PO/GPO's way of doing busness for many years. I suspect what was happening in the case cited here was that the accused was continually calling 999. Someone got fed up with it, and held the call while the engineering staff traced it back. Even if the calls were made in the middle of the night, the circuit could be held indefinitely, such as until the engineering staff comes to work the next day. Incidentally, ANI, and hence itemised billing is not native to TXE4's - it's an after-market add-on unit. Touch tone, though, is a standard option. Martin Harriss martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! Date: 17 Sep 90 00:21:03 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon On Sep 16 at 23:01, "W.L. Ware" writes: > I've got an annoying situation on my hands. All four of my incoming > phone lines suffer from intermittent cross talk. It seems to be worse > when it is wet outside, but that is definitely not always the case. First, disconnect the telco circuits at the point of demark. Using a buttset or telephone with clip leads dial up a silent line on one of the lines (or call someone and tell them to be very quiet), then make a call on another with your modem (such that it connects with another) and listen for crosstalk. Do this with all appropriate combinations of lines. If you hear no crosstalk, then you may have to rewire your home with twisted pair. The fact that you measure infinite resistance between conductors points to inductive or capacitive coupling between circuits, which is what twisted pair is designed to prevent. Cleaning up your "terminal" might help also, although the rat's nest in my garage has never caused any trouble. If you hear crosstalk on the naked telco circuits then get MA back out and demonstrate. If that doesn't work, you may be forced to use my patented "Ultimate Solution". Order four new lines. When they are in and working, have the old ones disconnected. Update numbers as desired. I have had to use this approach twice in the last thirty years. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:24:33 EDT From: Jeffrey C Halle Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo): > Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at > work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly > say that their fiber optic network is second to none. If you make You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. (I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.) > Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 > depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) > University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #653 ******************************  IN ERROR ISSUE 655 WAS TRANSMITTED BEFORE 654. 654 WILL FOLLOW AFTER 655 HERE, THEN 656 WILL FOLLOW THAT, ETC.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21135; 19 Sep 90 4:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23445; 19 Sep 90 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29613; 19 Sep 90 1:33 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 1:01:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #655 BCC: Message-ID: <9009190101.ab18109@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Sep 90 01:00:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 655 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NJ Bell Business Office Problems! [Lou Judice] 1+313 Needed Within 313 [Carl Moore] Call-Me Card [Mark Brader] N.J. Bell Directory Bug [George L. Sicherman] Bell Canada Restricts 976 [Mark Brader] N0X/N1X Prefixes [Carl Moore] West Virginia -- School and Calling Area [Carl Moore] That AT&T Fiji Commercial [Tom Lowe] How do PBXs & COCOTs Spot 7D Toll Calls? [Carl Moore] Sprint and Writing [Michael Gammal] Sprint Select, Sprint Express, and Sprint Crediting [Carol Springs] Sprint Whining (Was: Make Sprint Put it in Writing) [Kevin Blatter] Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM [Nigel Allen] Building Local Area Networks [Michael Andrews) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 07:07:02 PDT From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Sep-1990 1000" Subject: NJ Bell Business Office Problems! Egads! Last Wednesday, I tried to call the local NJ Bell Business Office serving my local exchange (Peapack, NJ). Whether dialing the 800-number, or the direct number, you received the following: Ring, Ring, Ring. Click. Ring. Human Voice: New Jersey Bell Click. Recorded Voice: Please wait for the next available operator. Hangup. I tried this several times on Wednesday. On Thursday I called the NJ Bell Operator. The operator, then her supervisor tried for over 15 minutes to connect. No luck. The supervisor then said she would call repair service. I mentioned that in my humble opinion, it seemed like the call director at the business office was mis-programmed. On Friday - Same Problem. I called the operator again - still NO luck. Today is Monday. Same problem!!!!!!!!!! I envision a room of service representatives at the business office wondering why no one has called for the past four days. Louis J. Judice Digital Equipment Corp. Piscataway, NJ 908.562.4103 judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:49:21 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 1+313 Needed Within 313 "1 + 313" does appear for within-313-area toll calls in the Flint, Michigan directory this year. ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Call-Me Card Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 11:02:07 -0400 An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill introduces a new restricted Calling Card, called the Call-Me Card. Calls made on the Call-Me Card can be made to one number only, to which (I presume) the calls are then billed. In other words, it's automatic collect calling, but processed like Calling Card calls. The charge for use is the same as for Calling Card calls, thus cheaper than collect calls. It can be used for calls from Canada and the U.S. and "many Caribbean islands" and through Canada Direct. Obtaining the card is free. The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family members. The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave them your Calling Card number. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 11:11:05 EDT From: George L Sicherman Subject: N.J. Bell directory bug Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories We recently got our 1990-1991 N. J. Bell directories at home (late, by mail). A N. J. Bell directory consists of white pages for a county or comparable area, and yellow pages and general information for a portion of that county. Our white pages are for Monmouth County, and they come with yellow pages for Asbury Park, Freehold, or Red Bank. The local calling information is supposed to match the yellow pages. We're in the Asbury Park yellow-pages district, so the local calling information in the front of our directory should cover the exchanges in the Asbury Park area. Last year it did. This year it covers the exchanges in the Red Bank area! Our exchange is absent. Has this problem been seen with other 1990-1991 N. J. Bell directories? Col. G. L. Sicherman gls@odyssey.att.COM ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Bell Canada Restricts 976 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 10:50:22 -0400 An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill reads in part: # Effective August 24, 1990 Bell Canada customers will be able # to reach only Bell 976 Service programs within their area code. # Long distance calls to Bell 976 Service programs elsewhere # within Bell Canada territory -- for example, Ottawa to Montreal # -- will automatically be blocked. # # ... Bell filed the proposal to block long distance calls to 976 # Service programs as a result of customer complaints over unauth- # orized calls. This restriction is meant to protect them from # unexpected long distance charge for 976 Service. Now, all of Bell Canada territory still has the rule that dialing only seven digits is equivalent to the call being local and therefore free. Long distance calls within the area code are dialed as 1+ seven digits, except in 416 where they are 1-416 + seven digits. Local calls to another area code are dialed as seven digits. So it is not possible here to dial a long distance call by accident here. Now, to be fair, I should note that because 976-number calls are not free, Bell Canada introduced the rule that dialing a 976-number within your area code is done like dialing a long-distance call within your area code, even though there may not actually be a long-distance charge in addition to the 976 charge. (I don't know if there ever is one.) So there may be some room for confusion about charging for 976. But blocking all long-distance calls to 976-numbers, just because some people weren't aware of the charging structure, strikes me as unreasonable. (This is not to say that I am in favor of the existence of 976- numbers in the first place, but that's another story.) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:45:28 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: N0X/N1X Prefixes Joel B. Levin writes: >The first time I saw NXX exchanges in real application (Manhattan >telephone numbers in A.C. 212)" Apparently he did not have occasion to look up or call the U.S. west coast? Area 213 had N0X/N1X prefixes (starting in 1973) before area 212, which until 1984 covered all of New York City. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:54:46 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: West Virginia -- School and Calling Area I was in West Virginia myself recently, and heard of a case where a local calling area was expanded because of a problem involving a school. The Philip Barbour High School is on U.S. 250 between Belington (304-823) and Philippi (304-457). Calls between these 2 prefixes used to be toll (that is beyond my memory), and the school had a Philippi number, resulting in a long distance call for students from areas served by Belington exchange. ------------------------------ From: tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:09 EDT Subject: That AT&T Fiji Commercial I just found out what is said in the much talked about AT&T FIJI commercial ... If it has been mentioned before, sorry. They say "Baku vinaka, beach side". Baku vinaka means "hello" in Figian. Tom Lowe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 17:04:58 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: How do PBXs & COCOTs spot 7D toll calls? I don't know the answer to this question (see subject header), nor do I know how local calls requiring 1+NPA+7D are spotted. To review: more-than-7-digit local calls appear in the DC area (from 301-621 etc. to 301-569, plus those extended-area calls from Va. suburbs to Prince William area--these should reduce to 7 digits after the dust settles from NPA+7D scheme for inter- NPA local calls in DC area) and also in local calls from Pa. to Del., and in local calls across NPA lines in San Francisco and Los Angeles areas (California). Toll calls within a New Jersey NPA are 7 digits. (But I now stand corrected on toll calls within 313: those are 1+313+7D instead of 7D.) ------------------------------ From: Michael Gammal Subject: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones Organization: None Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 22:04:19 GMT I found this to be bothersome. I reside in both Canada and the US from time to time, and wanted to subscribe to Sprint. I dialed 1-800-877-4000 and asked to subscribe. They put me on hold for a moment then asked me for information (name, phone, address...etc). I gave them both my American and Canadian numbers, and as soon as the representative heard the Canadian number, he said "that's a Canadian number right?". So I said "yes" and then they became rude saying you can't sign up, you can't make calls from canada, and then hung up on me. Crazy service - trying to discourage me from signing up! This makes no sense at all. Don't they need customers?! - Annoyed to say the least - Michael Gammal Concordia University gammal@Altitude.CAM.ORG ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Sprint Select, Sprint Express, and Sprint crediting Date: 17 Sep 90 23:23:45 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA The insert in my Sprint bill this month contains a couple of items of interest. To quote from the first: Beginning October 1, US Sprint will offer Sprint Select Interstate Evening/Night/Weekend, a custom plan that charges a flat $8.10 a month for the first hour of interstate calling from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. and on weekends. Additional hours within that period are billed at $6.50 per hour, prorated per minute used. And with Sprint Select Interstate Evening/Night/Weekend, you'll receive a 10 percent discount off the regular Dial 1 service rates for your interstate daytime long- distance calling. Plus, you'll receive 5 percent off all direct-dial intrastate and international, as well as interstate FONCARD, calls.... [I don't think this deal sounds like a win for me over Sprint Plus. My Sprint Plus rates are already in this price range, and it appears that I'd lose the volume discounts on my evening/night/weekend interstate Dial 1 calls.] And also beginning October 1, we'll have a special option for our California customers called Sprint Select Intrastate Evening/Night/Weekend. You can select a plan that lets you pay a flat monthly rate of $7.90 for your first hour of in-state US Sprint-carried calls. National calls cost $6.50 an hour, prorated per minute used, and you can receive the same discounts for daytime Dial 1 service and other direct dial calls as you do with Sprint Select Interstate. The other item I found interesting was about Sprint Express, Sprint's answer to AT&T's USA Direct. "You can charge your calls [from the six enumerated countries] to your FONCARD, call collect, or charge calls on your local telephone company calling card." Presumably this means that non-Sprint customers can use their AT&T cards, uh, local telephone company cards, with Sprint Express. A Sprint operator completes the call. The access numbers are as follows: Argentina 001-800-777-1111 Australia 0014-881-877 * France 19 0087 Japan 0039-131 Singapore 800-0877 United Kingdom 0800-89-0877 * Wait for tone Incidentally, I called Sprint customer service this evening to request credit for both a long distance directory assistance call and a one-minute call to the number D.A. had erroneously given me, which was not the number of the party I'd asked for. The Sprint rep said she could credit me for the one-minute call, but not for the call to directory assistance. When I asked why, she said that it was because directory assistance is handled by the local phone companies and that therefore I'd have to go through the company responsible to get the credit [fat chance]. Now, I can understand this denial of direct responsibility, but it makes me wonder: Does AT&T likewise refuse credit for directory assistance calls in these cases? How about MCI? Funny thing is, the Sprint rep said she was crediting me with both the 75-cent surcharge for the FONcard call and "78 cents for the first minute of your call." Now, I'd given her the number I'd reached, the call to which had cost only 87 cents including the surcharge. And I've made no daytime calls in the last couple of months for her to have mixed up with the cheapie call. Can you say "pacification"? (This was before I'd even asked about the reason for the "no D.A. credit" policy, and I never acted irritated during our conversation.) Or maybe she couldn't quickly find the call in question, and just took the daytime rate as a default. One final thing I noticed in both my bill insert and the bill itself: "Effective July 1, 1990, US Sprint discontinued monthly complimentary credits for interstate directory assistance." Thanks, folks. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:46:32 EDT From: Kevin Blatter Subject: Sprint Whining (Was: Make Sprint Put it in Writing) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The other night while I was watching "Nightline" I observed Sprint's "Rebuttal" to AT&T's get "them" to put it in writing. This was the commercial which closes with "Lighten up AT&T". At first I thought, "what an interesting way to close a commercial?". AT&T has made fun of Sprints "so quite you can hear a pin drop" bit before, but I never thought we (as if I have anything to do with AT&T's advertising!!) were pointing the finger at Sprint with the new ad campaign. Anyway, I guess that Sprint feels as though AT&T is trying to capitalize on Sprint's recent misfortunes with making money (ie. record 2nd quarter losses). If this *is* the case, it is quite interesting since wasn't it Sprint who took the cheapshots last January with the "Only LD carrier never to have had a major outage" ad campaign. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Laboratories Lincroft, NJ P.S. AT&T pays me to write software, not to write advertisements nor to share opinions in this forum. These opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 18:39 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Someone has already made posted an article here discussing Nynex's CD-ROMs containing telephone directory information for Nynex's operating companies, New York Telephone and New England Telephone. Nynex has produced a demonstration floppy disk to show off the capabilities of the Fast Trask CD-ROM. If you would like a free copy of the demo disk, call toll-free 1-800-338-0646, or write to: NYNEX Information Resources Company Attention: Fast Track P.O. Box 3518 New York, N.Y. 10277 Specify whether you want a 5.25" or 3.5" disk. Nigel Allen telephone (416) 535-8916 52 Manchester Avenue fax (416) 978-7552 Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 Canada ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 13:32 CDT From: "Michael P. Andrews" Subject: Building Local Area Networks New item submission by mikea@ddsw1 for conference comp.dcom.telecom. Response to item 4047¥nThere's a chart in "Building Local Area Networks with Novell's Netware" by Patrick H. Corrigan and Aisling Guy. M&T Books, publisher. ISBN 1-55851-010- 9. The chart on page 236 gives standard 25 pair and 50 pair connector numbers, wire color codes, and match-ups to standard 2-pair, 3-pair, and 4-pair RJ-??¥ harmonicas. If you're using Netware, I recommend the book highly for that information also. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #655 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11164; 19 Sep 90 23:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28921; 19 Sep 90 21:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19492; 19 Sep 90 20:43 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:31:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #654 BCC: Message-ID: <9009192031.ab11986@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Sep 90 23:55:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 654 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Humor at the Moderator's Expense [Christopher Ambler] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Mike Olson] Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Ihor J. Kinal] Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Tom Gray] Re: Voice Mail Passwords [Jeff Carroll] Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Jeff Carroll] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Jeff DePolo] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) Subject: Telephone Humour at the Moderator's Expense Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 8:8:37 GMT Our Moderator recently said... >>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a >>major violation of trust.... PAT] >[Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you >still think it is funny? PAT] Come on, Pat, lighten up. It's going to happen. It happens in ALL areas. Some of the computer labs I have worked in DELIGHTED in sending messages to novice users' screens. Similarly to the phone incidents, there were times when we'd throw two terminals into ntalk with each other and watch the totally unaware users type at each other. Perhaps what is irking your squid is a bit more serious than this, but like I said, IT HAPPENS. It *IS* funny. Roll with it. Or another point ... is it funny when a subscriber pulls pranks on the phone company? How about the subscriber that records SIT tones and the "this number..." recording on a digital answering machine and drives an operator nutty? What about the hours of work tracing down the trouble in a perfectly working line? I guess my point is, do you expect this industry to be free from this sort of behaviour? I don't. Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us ------------------------------ From: Mike Olson Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 07:53:08 PDT In <12247@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > Humor is a very subjective concept. Almost every industry, > profession and vocation has inside humor and humorous escapades which > would be abhorrent to the general public if disclosed. Perhaps, but the law is far from subjective on this point. The activities you describe are illegal. If you listen in on a private communication for any other reason than verifying that line quality is acceptable, you are breaking the law. > ... Such antics will always occur because of *human* nature. So what's the point? Does that excuse the blatant disregard for privacy? > I have to admit that *I* found humor in the previous article. > I must also admit that as a one time member of a secret fraternity > known as The Telephone Company :-), I, too, have participated in > similar antics. About the nicest thing I can think of to say here is that you must have been pretty immature to find it amusing to play practical jokes on people bereaved by the death of a loved one. The fact that you're willing to boast about it now indicates that you haven't made a lot of progress since then. Mike Olson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 10:06:57 EDT From: Ihor J Kinal Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Larry Lippman wrote: > Also, I can think of no valid reason to split E-W and W-E > routing between different transmission facilities. *ALL* transmission > facilities used for intertoll circuits are, by their very nature, > bi-directional. While I have seen all sorts of route diversity and > failure protection switching, I have never seen anything that split > transmission directions through different facilities. The way I remember this, the reason that a split was put into effect was excessive delay on satellite calls. Remember that the satellites are at approx 22,000 miles up. Double that, and it means that we need approx a quarter of a second to traverse in ONE direction. [Speed of light = 186,000 m.p.s.]. If both sides went over satellite, that would mean a half-second of extra delay from when one person stopped talking, until the next person could possibly reply. This much delay would then then cause the original person to start talking again, to see if the distant party was still there, leading to great confusion. Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk [Include standard disclaimers and although I work at Bell Labs, I never did any work satellite communications - I'm just a software person anyway.] ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions Date: 18 Sep 90 16:51:43 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <12220@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 651, Message 4 of 9 >In article <11532@accuvax.nwu.edu> dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl (Dolf >Grunbauer) writes: >> 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? >Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated >than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if >such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and >W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit. Echo suppressors have been succeeded by echo cancellers and differing W-E and E-W paths are used in the network. >Control of echo on intertoll circuits can be implemented by >simple attenuation in the trivial case, and voice-switched attenuation >through echo suppressors in the more common case. The proper design >of intertoll circuits, including configuration of echo suppressors, is >governed by the Via Net Loss (VNL) concept. VNL design requires >knowledge of propagation delay in milliseconds. At the time I was >involved in the telephone industry, the VNL design with which I was >familiar imposed a maximum of 22.5 milliseconds propagation delay to a >DDD switching midpoint, with an maximum overall delay of 45 >milliseconds on any given DDD circuit. It was always a "given" that >VNL design required the same propagation delay in each direction. The control of echo is given by the requirement of the echo path delay which is the ROUND TRIP delay of a connection. For echo it doesn't matter if one path has longer dealy than the other only the total delay is important. The delay ind thus loss for different frequencies is of course different and thus a measure called the Weighted Echo Path Loss is generated. WEPL = -20log (1/3200 Integral 200 to 3400 (10**-EPL(f)/20) df From this measure the required loss around the loop may be derived from curves of subjective measurements. This may be partitioned in any manner on transmit and receive paths with no effect on the perception of echo. The VNL plan has been superseded in the digital network by the fixed loss plan since the VNL assumed losses in trunks that do not occur in digital trunks. Rather than place digital pads in the network (and ruin transmission) appropriate analog pads are used at the end points. >While I admit that I have no firsthand experience with >intertoll circuits involving satellites or transoceanic cable, I would >find it difficult to believe that any satisfactory transmission (and >echo) performance could be achieved with the E-W and W-E directions >that have widely *differing* propagation times. Separating the transmit and receive paths between terrestrial and satellite paths lowers the echo path delay (round trip delay) and lowers the requirements on the echo cancellers. Such split path trunks are used. >Obviously, satellite transmission by its very nature imposes >propagation delays which far exceed 45 milliseconds. However, echo >suppressors and intertoll circuit design can be set up to deal with >such increased propagation delays - *provided* that the delay is equal >in each direction. The allocation of delay to tranmit and receive paths is unimportant Only the round trip (echo path) delay is perceptible to the user. >I have never seen anything that split transmission directions >through different facilities. Such facilities do exist. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Voice Mail Passwords Date: 17 Sep 90 21:28:02 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12066@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: (Advocacy of POS terminal transactions) >Get used to ATM-style transactions. It's a happening thing. Another concern about POS terminals and ATMs which is related to security is the question of whether the ATM card constitutes the Mark of the Beast. :^) Followups to talk.religion.misc (or alt.flame). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Date: 17 Sep 90 21:22:54 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12065@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: >In article <12026@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Speed >writes: >>On a similar note, our local grocery chain has >>installed pseudo ATM's for banking from the checkout line. Perhaps I'm >>paranoid, but I don't see any advantage (to *me*) in giving the >>merchant my bank number and PIN. Am I being silly? I asked myself the same question the other night when I bought gas at an Arco station in a fairly unsavory part of town (not far from my office :^) ). Since the POS terminal asks you whether you want a receipt, I pushed "yes" and walked into the station, as directed by the machine. The rather harried clerk looked at me, surmised since I was standing outside the turnstile that I was a POS customer waiting for a receipt, and then took a *long* piece of cash register tape into his hand. In addition to gas receipts from the POS terminal, this tape was printing receipts for every Pepsi and Hostess Twinkie passing through the cash register. After a few seconds of puzzling over the tape, the clerk asked me which pump I used, and more puzzling ensued until the printer started growling again. Clerk: "Oh, here it is.". He ripped the tape from the printer, removed the piece of the tape containing my receipt, and (presumably) threw the rest away. I checked the tape - it did not contain my PIN. I've concluded that if the PIN *does* find its way into Atlantic Richfield's network, it's not likely to do so in such a form as to become archived anywhere. What legal purpose could be served by such a database? >Well, this gets a bit far from Telecom, but there are several potential >advantages to the consumer from this type of arrangement: >For certain types of checking accounts from some banks, this type of >transaction may be free, while writing a check is not. Or, in this case, writing a check is impossible (would be free if the gas station accepted checks), and this type of transaction is not (Arco charges $0.10 transaction fee). To me the advantage is merely not having to stand in line behind a bunch of people buying cigarettes, pseudo-hot dogs, and Ho-Hos. (stuff excised) >The proliferation of ATM terminals and retail stores using ATM type >cards seems to be particularly popular in urban areas, but seems to be >much less popular in small town America. Now this may be because of >attitude differences, but I have assumed that much of it is also due >to the fact that connecting the terminal to necessary host equipment >is also considerably more expensive and thus the amount of traffic for >a particular location would need to be much higher for a rural >location than an urban one. Can someone knowledgeable describe the >typical type of connections utilized by ATM equipment (both stand >alone and in conjunction with a point of sale terminal)? I would assume that the functional differences between an ATM and a POS terminal would be embedded in the terminals themselves. Both use plain ole asynchronous modems (usually hidden where you can't see them, but sometimes where you can see them but can't get at them. The usual scheme (I believe) is that the ATM dials up a central site which multiplexes several signals and connects to the network's central mainframe (often via satellite link). It may not be cost effective to run ATMs in locations that are far removed from the central site of a bank/retailer which uses land lines, but even in remote localities it would be easy for large retailers who already have satellite networks in place (e.g., Safeway, which distributes its own background music via satellite to a downlink in each store, at least in this part of the country) to have ATMs and POS terminals. The parts of "small-town America" which I frequent are well populated with them. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff DePolo Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 18 Sep 90 13:50:11 GMT Reply-To: Jeff DePolo Organization: University of Pennsylvania In article <12255@accuvax.nwu.edu> halle@homxb.att.com (Jeffrey C Halle) writes: > From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu >(Jeff DePolo): >> Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at >> work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly >> say that their fiber optic network is second to none. If you make >You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all >noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from >the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference >between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home >is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. >(I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.) I strongly disagree. If I use my USS calling card from the office, noise is greatly reduced. Some of the other LD carriers heavily rely on satellites (MCI purchased Satellite Business Systems, owners of "Skyline"). These, I admit, are worse than AT&T. I remember having Skyline before they were bought by MCI and echoing was a problem. Also, at times, the connection was half duplex - you couldn't interrupt the person on the other end while they were talking. But still, anything other than fiber optic for a long haul will typically have a lower S/N ratio, in reality. Theoretically, if all of the microwave links/ hard wire/satellite equipment was up to spec, there shouldn't be much difference between fo and the old mediums. But this isn't the case. BTW, all of U of P is on its own campus-wide system known as Penntrex, and isn't maintained, wired, or supported by Bell of PA. A second BTW, I lived on campus for two years and never had local line noise problems when using USS. Basically the argument boils down to this: overall, all of the LD carriers still have to use Ma Bell local lines at the ends of the connection, so whoever has the highest quality _between_ regions wins the prize. Local telco noise is common to everyone, so it has nothing to do with the argument regarding which service has the cleanest audio. Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #654 ******************************  IN ERROR ISSUE 655 WAS TRANSMITTED BEFORE 654 AND APPEARS BEFORE 654 IN THIS ARCHIVES. 656 FOLLOWS NEXT HERE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12022; 20 Sep 90 0:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11628; 19 Sep 90 22:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28921; 19 Sep 90 21:47 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 21:40:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #656 BCC: Message-ID: <9009192140.ab23321@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Sep 90 21:40:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 656 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 900 Number Woes [Donald E. Kimberlin Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Rolf Meier] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Jon Baker] Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! [Isaac Rabinovitch] Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [Dan Ross] Re: Octothorpes [Dave Archer] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin] Re: MCI As Slamming King [Jon Baker] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Jon Baker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 17:33 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: 900 Number Woes In article , Larry quoted an interesting report from the {Cincinnati Post} about how a 15-year-old boy ran up a $40,500 bill between June 30 and August 22 on an MCI 900 number. While I favor no "free speech rights" for purveyors of slime by telephone, there was something that just seemed strange in the numbers: The time period described is 54 days long. If the calls were $25 minimum each, that amount would have bought 1,620 calls. In 54 days, it would have taken 30 calls EACH day, 7 days a week to run up that bill. Again, while I hold no excelsior banner for MCI or Cincinnati Bell, that amount of usage by a teenager seems to me it should have raised parental interest. I think there's more to this story than was printed and we do have an issue of parental responsibility to investigate before jumping to conclusions. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!) Date: 18 Sep 90 14:02:08 GMT Reply-To: Rolf Meier Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. >Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde >School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making >the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's >probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that >way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point. I just wanted to make >the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.) His >_modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line. >The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing >about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?) >(You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!) Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a "voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay the extra. You can argue that "but MY data calls are ALWAYS short, and I talk for HOURS"; unfortunately the rates are not figured like that right now. In the future, when you will be paying for bandwidth x connect time, you may be satisfied that the rates are "fair". Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX and Usenet node Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 14:31:03 GMT In <12247@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: >Like crossing the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant >with the major undertaking establishment in the city. >[Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in >someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral >arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must >have really split your pants open with laughter at that one. PAT] Oh get off it Pat. Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the telco antics issue is getting old. Just because you didn't think of it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny others their own enjoyment of a situation. I am willing to bet that you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin Date: 18 Sep 90 17:07:53 GMT Organization: gte In article <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: > My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long > distance rates. Perhaps a technical nitpick, but it's 'intra-lata', not 'intra-state'. In smaller eastern states, it may be the case that lata=state, but this is not the case in the west. e.g. a Phoenix-Tucson call is not handled by USWest. > luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic use of long > distance carriers for in state long distance calls. I've found that only AT&T is diligent about blocking intra-lata calls. Using LD carriers for intra-lata (although they're not supposed to do this) is good method of obtaining better quality transmission or better rates (depending on the carrier, quality of trunks from US West to the carrier, etc.). JB ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! Date: 18 Sep 90 17:48:06 GMT Reply-To: claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA I'm no telecom expert, but I've experience with a cause of crosstalk that nobody seems to have thought of. It affected a bunch of residential lines that had just been installed. Turned out (according to the guy who finally fixed it) that all the affected phone lines hat been connected to various cable wires (go ahead and flame me, I'd like to know the correct terminology) without reference to which twisted pair each individual wire belonged to. Incidentally, this was pre-breakup, and the battle between the California PUC and Pacific Telephone (90% owned by AT&T) was still going strong. I was told that the reason for the initial problem was inadequate training/apprenticship for the workers who made the initial mistake and failed to diagnose the problem (or couldn't even find my house!). It seems likely to me now that the PUC's rate policy was determined more by an anti-big business mentality than realistic economics. I'm no lover of big business (especially AT&T!) myself, but this experience raised my kneejerk reflex threshold somewhat. ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA ------------------------------ From: Dan Ross Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! Date: 18 Sep 90 20:58:22 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept There is a similar phone (voice-activated dialing of pre-entered numbers) in the "Damark" catalog of technological wonders. I gave my catalog away, so I don't have the info, but I remember it had an LCD display, and was available for "substantially below list price". Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ..!uwvax!dross ------------------------------ From: Dave Archer Subject: Re: Octothorpes Date: 19 Sep 90 00:43:23 GMT Reply-To: v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo In article <12267@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes... >the other buttons? On a related question, is there any "standard" for >what the * and # buttons do on pulse-dial phones? Mute and redial are >(respectively) fairly common in my experience, how widespread is this? >Maybe sending 11 and 12 pulses would be more consistent, if less >useful =8) I've got a pulse/tone switchable phone that uses * for mute and # for redial. It does mute/redial regardless of whether you're in pulse or tone mode, which of course means, you can't send a * or # in tone. What bothers me about it is that they still have the buttons labeled as * and #. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:11:48 CDT John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 643: | So how 'bout it? From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming | king. I have, on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the | default carrier on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine | report the same. So while Sprint is exhorting potential customers to | switch from AT&T, MCI is doing it for them whether they like it or | not. Last autumn I regaled the Digest's readership with the story of how MCI slammed my parents and tried to slam me. I opened a 10XXX-only account with them and put my two lines and their two lines on it. Some overeager clerk decided to code it for 1+ service and they kept trying to switch us. [For details, consult Digests in volume 9.] My parents' telco is Illinois Bell; they dutifully obeyed MCI's order ("Yes, it was MCI who told us, not you, but they wouldn't lie.") and switched my parents' 1+ to MCI and charged them $5.00 per line for the honor. Central Telephone, on the other hand, called me to confirm (and called again when MCI told them again) and I said no, no way, I'm sticking with Telecom*USA, and I'll be the one to say so if there are to be any changes. IBT got earfuls from my mother and from me and switched my parents' lines back to AT&T, credited them for the fee for the first switch to MCI, and didn't charge for returning them to AT&T. Centel told me they fully understood my position and that that was why they had a policy of checking with the customer rather than acting on a third party's greed, so they never had to make any changes, undo any changes already made, or bill and credit any charges. In our case it was the IEC's own sleaziness; frequently, an IEC hires some marketing firm, who dutifully report that 100% of all customers called are eager, eager, eager to switch, and no one at the IEC, since they have the marketer's report to get them out of trouble ("We didn't lie to your telco! It was the marketer who lied to us, see?"), is willing to admit that the results are a bit hard to believe. The IEC then cheerily repeats the marketer's lies to the telqi. The telqi could learn not to listen to the IEC's but only to the customers, and that would instantly end slamming, though I feel that it's the IEC's who should be held responsible when it occurs. Still, I notice the difference between the two telqi: the BOC decides that a colleague in the industry knows what is best for the customer, but the independent is interested in what the customer wants. On the other hand, the sales rep at Cable & Wireless told me that if I decide to switch, she will three-way with me and Central Telephone at C&W's expense so that all three parties will know that the transaction is on the up-and-up. I wonder whether they learned from other IECs' experiences or their own. (One of C&W's requirements is that at least one number on the account have them as primary carrier, so the policy might also stem from their own interest in seeing that the customer follows through on a promise to notify the telco to switch the line.) On another note, in volume 10, issue 644 (the real one), Jerry Altzman quoted an old OGM of his: | "Hello, this is the law offices of Hillel and Shammai. Please leave | your name, number and brief message at the beep. These are the words | of Hillel. Shammai says, leave your message first, and then your name | and number, but both are the words of the living God." | (Hillel and Shammai were Rabbis who almost always disagreed.) That doesn't sit right. Shammai would never say to leave your message first and then your name, making the recipient rely on the hope of recognizing your voice to know how to interpret the message (the same words, such as references to children and spouses and employers, will mean different things from different people). No, Shammai would have said to leave your name first, then your number to complete the frame of reference and background information, and then your message. Hillel would have said, since messages are easier to remember than telephone numbers, leave your name first, then your message, and then a number at which you can be reached LAST so that it will be freshest in the listener's memory, unobscured by surprises in the message, in case the listener wishes to dial right away or cannot write it down. But this is valid, and that is valid. Follow-ups on the Hillel/Shammai answering machine debate to soc.- culture.jewish, but wait until Chol Hammo`ed Sukkoth so that people will be in a Simchat Torah mood. Shnat brakhah v'hatzlachah. 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 Moderator's Note: Holiday greetings to you, David, and our other Jewish participants on the net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King Date: 18 Sep 90 17:20:46 GMT Organization: gte In article <12217@accuvax.nwu.edu>, v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Dave Archer) writes: > I've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers > hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees. Such > as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of > a job". This might explain alot. And as far as MCI, it could just be > they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other > companys do. According to the WSJ report, MCI was not using outside telemarketers; the agents were employees of MCI. Quotas were imposed by MCI HQ. Unfortunately, the persons responsible for monitoring the marketers and reporting such behavior were working for the same management responsible for the quotas. The tactic was directed primarily at the elderly, hard-of-hearing, and non-english speaking victims. Although MCI led the pack in slamming complaints (both to FCC, and to local telops), Sprint was not far behind, and a few complaints were registered against AT&T as well. The practice is growing to epidemic proportions, and is becoming a major concern for the telops. It costs them time/money to deal with the flood of customer complaint, of a problem which they can legally do nothing to stop. It would also be expensive if all default-carrier conversions were accompanied by paperwork which had to be processed by the telop. They seem to be stuck in a no-win situation. Perhaps AT&T's lawsuit will deter the practice in the future. MCI HQ claims to be making management and policy changes, and increased efforts to monitor/stop slamming by their telemarketers. JB ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 18 Sep 90 22:23:27 GMT Organization: gte > [Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past > acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up, > that's for sure. PAT] Sure it is. Such behavior is the lowest-level manifestation of what 'the company' had become. Directly or indirectly, this activity was representative of the company's attitude and philosophy - the overall AT&T gestalt, if you will. [Moderator's Note: Then we disagree on the extent of the 'jerk-ism', and its prevalence in the old Bell System. My experience was that the fools there were only a very small percentage of the total work force. Most of the people were hard workers, dedicated to the welfare of the customers. As my former neighbor here in Rogers Park, Charlie Brown, former Chairman of AT&T, once said, (speaking of MCI) "When's the last time *they* had a couple of their men working working in the mountains of Montana in January accidentally fall off a cliff and kill themselves in the line of duty while trying to restore phone service to a community which had lost all its links in a severe storm the day before?" And *that* to me is what the old Bell System was about: people who cared, and got the job done right. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #656 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12898; 20 Sep 90 1:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15987; 19 Sep 90 23:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11628; 19 Sep 90 22:51 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:21:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #657 BCC: Message-ID: <9009192221.ab22379@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:20:54 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 657 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answering Machine Messages [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Answering Machine Messages [David Lesher] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Barton F. Bruce] Answering Machine Messages and SIT [Amanda Walker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19-SEP-1990 03:33:09.46 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Pat- While I agree with you that making use of a Telco recording MAY rightfully get you in trouble with said Telco due to false representation, I find it hard to believe that the tariff(s) which specify degradation of service were intended towards callers leaving "confusing" outgoing messages. For example, what if I had an Outgoing Message (OGM) on my machine that said: "We're sorry, the number you have reached is being checked for trouble. Please try your call again later. Thank you. 508-221." Now this may SOUND like a NETel recording, yet nowhere is NETel mentioned, and NO reference is made to the phone company at all. Simply because something SOUNDS similar doesn't mean it is the same thing, and in this case the entire OGM can be quite "legitimate" (ie, everything said in there is true, as I may be checking the phone for trouble and using the machine for my own purposes to see if I can call in or not, and I don't want anyone else to call.) It may very well sound a LOT like a NETel recording, but as long as I don't mention "NETel" or the "phone company" etc., ie, I don't try to pass my number off as one of theirs, then I doubt they can legally do anything about it. If you insist that they CAN do something about a message like this, then where do we draw the line? Must I put a disclaimer in ANY message which sounds SOMEWHAT similar to the Telco's saying "This is not XXX Bell Co., but my own message!"? That is to say, if I had a carphone set *71 (no answer transfer) to my answering machine, and the OGM said: "The mobile customer you have reached is not in the vehicle. Please call 702-741-7626. Thank you. 415-3E.", can the telco tell me to get rid of that message? If your argument is followed to its conclusion, the answer seems to be "yes, they can." For example, someone calls my car number, hears that I am not in, and then calls 702-741-7626. The caller gets a dial tone (from the ROAM port). The caller hangs up, and dials again. Same thing. After 10 calls, the caller calls Directory Assistance in 702 and asks for me. No listing. The caller then calls the operator, who if she isn't aware that "7626" is a Roam port and/or it doesn't show on her screen (which HAS happened - I've managed to make COLLECT call attempts to Roam ports a few years ago!), will keep trying to get a non-dial tone answer, may talk to her supervisor, and may then put in a trouble report. Clearly, a LOT of time is taken up. And one could argue that I SHOULD have said "Hi, I'm not around now ... if you are calling my mobile #, try calling me at the Reno Roam port, 702-741-7626. Thanks. 415-3E.". Yet what if that one answering machine served a group of mobile phones, and we all wanted the same generic OGM? Then what? Do we have to structure OUR OGM so that it is acceptable to the phone company? How innocuous does a message have to get before no "disclaimer" is necessary? I can think of numerous other OGMs that would cause similar trouble. How about my brother, who sometimes has 30 seconds of a guitar solo on his OGM? Too confusing? Too many people will call operators asking "Why am I getting KZAP-FM on my phone line?". Or how about some of my old college roomates, who were too busy to leave a message and just left the OGM blank, and had an answering machine that picked up so quickly sometimes you wouldn't even hear a ring? What if someone called and claimed "I called 346-9999 and no one answered and nothing happened at all." Should the Telco then call my roomates and say "Look, we don't like your answering machine because it picks up too quickly, and for that matter, we don't like the lack of a message on your machine - put one on there or we will bother you." And while I'm at it, what if my phone line is used as a data line for five days out of a week? Now lots of people try to call me during the week, but they keep getting this busy signal. So one guy who thinks he is particularly clever calls the operator and asks for a "Verification" (which is free in my area.) The op. tests the line, says "It's in use", and hangs up. But the guy is very curious, so he does this every day until he can get through - AND, he goes to payphones each time so that the telco never knows it is really the same person calling. Should the telco be able to tell me: "Hey, this guy keeps calling you, and your line is always busy, and he is bothering our operators,so we don't want you using the phone line so much so that he can get through!"? Of course not! I am using my phone for a legitimate purpose, and although the telco derives no revenue from my usage (let's say it's a local call), it is certainly not my fault that someone keeps calling the operators for a verification every day. Moreover, this is analogous to the answering machine situation: I have a message which creates some confusion, so people call the operators all the time, and this takes up the operators' time. SO WHAT? The Telco is getting revenue from the calls to my machine, and I am in good faith leaving messages which *I* like to leave and which in no way represent myself as an agent of the Telco. I am not trying to hurt the telco, and I am using my phone line in the way which I see fit, which doesn't actively cause trouble for anyone. Although the tariff may indeed have implications for customers who cause harm to the network (such as using line current to charge batteries! :-)), I doubt that it was the intent of those who drafted the tariff to prevent customers from leaving ambiguous or confusing messages. Although an OGM may cause a higher degree of use of telco faclities than would have otherwise been necessary, this is one of the costs of being in the phone business, the same way that not EVERY phone will be answered when it is called, wasting Telco (and possibly LD) facilities on the attempt. The intent of the tariff more probably lies in efforts to reduce the use of non-Bell or non FCC certified equipment which the telco previously feared would damage the network, to reduce the amount of fraud committed by use of Telco facilites, to prevent customers from using their lines to annoy other customers or to make it impossible or more difficult for other customers to use their line(s) (as in a prty line), etc. Rather than put the burden of having an "acceptable" message on the customer, it seems more realistic to expect the Telco to have people well qualified enough to realize that they are getting a machine, and can thus inform the customer. Simply because some customers are too stupid to try to figure it out for themselves, or some operators too lazy to listen to see what happens at the end of the message (or whatever else..these are only examples) doesn't validate the phone company in trying to prevent me from leaving whatever message I choose, as long as I don't pass myself off as being their agent. As noted above, there are so many other examples of instances where the Telco's time is "wasted", that singling out answering machines and allowing the telco to control the content of my OGM defies logic. If they can't tell me to stop using my phone/keeping the line busy, why should they be able to tell me that they don't like my message and I have to remove it? Both circumstances may cause the Telco a lot of trouble, yet simply ecuase it is the EASIEST thing for the telco to do doesn't mean it is the right thing, and pesonally, I don't like the idea of the Telco being able to censor or control the content of my messages when it only tangentally may affect them. Thus, I would say that since the message " The number you have reached XXX-XXXX is not in service." is not specific to the Bells (Bell Canada uses it, as well as other telcos around the world, BT for example...), one could have such a message on their line and not violate any specific tariffs. As long as the Alert Tones and the message were not copies of a Bell recording (ie, you made them up yourself or something) I can't see how Bell could get you on the tariffs issue ... they may be able to on "impersonating the telco", but that's a different story...! :-) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Here is an example of how someone can send an 8000 + byte message to rationalize the use of a misleading OGM for the purpose of doing what they are apparently unable to do in person: Say NO to a telemarketer and replace the reciever graciously. Even if your peculiar traffic patterns as described above were in fact real -- and I doubt *anyone* could have such bizzare requirements as you note in your message -- there would still be no legitimate reason to add the identification code on the end. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 23:40:25 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers |Michael P. Deignan tells of his "special" answering machine tape that |sounds like | | " The number you have reached ... | has been disconnected..." | I guess it is time to tell the best telco_tale I have ever heard. I hope Mr. Moderator will keep his flames in check. First, it's not MY story, and secondly, it comes from his Pax Belliphonis era, i.e. recorded history. A long long time ago, in a CO far, far away ... A friend of mine named Phil opened a service business. Since, at that time, he lived with his mother, he needed a second line for the enterprise. The only problem was that the LAST sub on that assignment was a woman who led, shall we say, an active social life. Men (LOTS of MEN) called at ALL hours of the day and night. Some implied that they were paying for the phone, and her apartment, and ... They tended to be upset with Phil's mother (much less Phil!) when she answered the phone. They got very abusive and DEMANDED to talk to Jane, who it seems, had left town in a manner imitated years later by the Baltimore Colts. Now Phil knew that his mother would not tolerate much of this. But short of getting a new assignment, and reprinting all his cards and stationary, AND telling all his customers, what could he do? Clearly an answering machine was the solution. The only problem was: In those pre-Carterphone days, you could not buy such. (After all, it was FOREIGN EQUIPMENT.) So Phil called up his friends in the {deleted} stockroom (guess where he worked BEFORE he opened his business) and he soon had a used (oops -- remanufactured) 1B answering machine at home. The only problem was: Only those folks willing to rent one were supposed to have same. So Phil recorded the standard panel office message "I'm sorry, the number you have reached is not a working number" as an OGM. He also futzed with the box (more like a M1 tank, really -- have you ever seen a 1B?) so that it answered with a flash of supervision, then played the message, the way the CO did. (Alas, it did NOT cut through to an intercept operator afterwards -- the way a real disconnected number did.) All was fine for months. Most of the men gave up on Jane, and Phil's customers all knew enough to talk to the box. Besides, if you called from a coin slot, you got your nickel back! Then the machine started to take LOTS of calls. No messages, but there were many click-click-click sounds in the background, along with some words later heard on tapes made in the Oval Office. This kept up for about a week. One day, Phil got back in a little early (1900) and sat down to do paperwork. The phone went crazy. Ring, "I'm sorry.." Click. Ring "I'm", click, etc. After about 20 rounds of this, Phil reached over and answered the phone: "Hello?" "Oh my god, mister ... whatever you do, don't hang up," the voice said. "Oh, why is that?" Phil asked. "This is the telephone company, and you have REAL PROBLEMS on your phone." Then the poor switchman went on to explain what had happened. It seems that Ma had botched his bill, and claimed that he was three months behind on his local service. So the business office called to chew him out. But ... "the number you have reached" ... So of course the Business Office asked Accounting why THEY were still billing this guy whose line was not in service. They, of course, said it WAS in service. This filtered on down to the CO, where they checked his pair. Nope, it is NOT tied to intercept at the frame. "Ring, I'm sorry" ... But IT MUST BE! So they traced the pair out through the cable vault. "Ring, I'm sorry" still came through. So The Boss told Joe Frame to "CLEAR THIS TROUBLE before you leave today" and that's what Joe was doing. At first, Joe thought it must be crossed with another pair in the switch. So he unplugged the old intercept announcment machine. "Ring, I'm sorry" ... So Joe's NEXT thought was that the pair was SOMEHOW crossed with one ending up in another CO. So, one after another, Joe was calling the night man at the other CO's, having each one unplug HIS announcer, and trying again. Even in those days, that was a lot of CO's -- hence a lot of calls. Joe had worked his way through about 60% of the list when Phil answered. Joe asked Phil's indulgence, and said he would call back. Phil answered, but as he said years later: "I really should have let it ring through ONE more time." Joe proclaimed the trouble cleared, and went home. Phil disconnected the 1B, and got a friend to help him move it to the basement. Oh, BTW. Phil got a refund for three months service. He would have sent it back, but HOW could he explain it? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 19 Sep 90 03:06:30 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. PAT said: > And since most subscribers would reasonably > associate the tones and message text with telco, telco could claim > that the person making such an announcement over the phone was > falsely claiming to represent, or speak for the company. PAT] I always thought any random SIT tones were a great idea to thwart telemarketers. The really good ones are using predictive dialers that use DSP chips to monitor the call and can switch to an idle agent (assuming one is free) so fast that MOST of your "Hello" will be heard. Who you are, etc. also pops up on the agent's screen at the same time. The trunk to agent ratios can be 1.5:1 or higher. They DON'T want idle agents. That same DSP chip also listens for things other than human voice, and SIT tones immediately indicate the called party is NOT going to be answering, or so they think. If telco complains, say you will stop using SIT tones when they provide free telemarketer blocking for your phone. If you are a regular at DPU hearings, and send a few letters a week to various legislators about Telecom issues, I doubt telco would find cutting you off worth while, even though they would like to. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 16:38:14 EDT From: Amanda Walker Subject: Answering Machine Messages and SIT I've been wondering how useful (or conversely, confusing) it would be to have an answering machine message which started with an SIT and then went on into a "normal" announcement. This would avoid problems with people who don't realize that they are not talking to a human, and with any luck it would fool telemarketing autodialers :-). Since the message itself would describe how to leave a message, I wouldn't think that it would "fool" anyone into thinking it was a telco message -- it would just alert them to the fact that they aren't going to be able to talk to the person they think will answer the phone. Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #657 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12948; 20 Sep 90 1:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15987; 19 Sep 90 23:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11628; 19 Sep 90 22:51 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:46:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #658 BCC: Message-ID: <9009192246.ab01540@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:45:49 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 658 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: May AT&T Attack a Specific Carrier? [David Tamkin] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dave Levenson] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Dave Levenson] Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site? [David Lesher] Re: Local Calling Numbers [Dave Levenson] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Mark Wilkins] Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jay Libove] Re: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones [Carol Springs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: May AT&T Attack a Specific Carrier? Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:03:44 CDT J. Eric Townsend wrote in volume 10, issue 651: | In a propaganda class the other day, we were watching an episode of | Nightline. It was full of Sprint's "Lighten up, AT&T" series of | adverts. | My question is this: Could AT&T, if it wanted, decide to attack | carrier X? ie: "Carrier X says they give you better prices, but | it's not true. AT&T is much cheaper." Or are they somehow legally | required to say: "Some other carriers say they give you better prices, | but it's not true."? Law, schmaw; it's standard advertising practice. The company [that is or believes it is] in the #1 position *never* names the competition in its commercials or ads; competitors, however, figure everyone has heard of #1 anyway and that they must go directly after the leader's customers, so they don't worry that mentioning #1's name will be free publicity for #1. But the leader will just reassert how wonderful it is and give no reminder of competitors' names; at the most, #1 will tell you that it is "best". Royal Crown tells you their cola tastes better than Pepsi or Coke and that people will go out of their way for it; Pepsi tells you people prefer Pepsi to Coke but never mentions RC; Coke tells you that they are an unassailable component of the American tradition and never even hint that other colas, other soft drinks (even Coke's own products), or any other beverages exist; the alternative to drinking Coca-Cola is purportedly death by thirst. The long-distance telephony industry is just as full of gas as carbonated beverages are. 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: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 19 Sep 90 01:30:10 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the > ground? The cellular telephone system depends upon spatial diversity. The channel you're using is also in use at numerous other cell sites, far enough from your location that others may use them without interference. A cellular phone in a plane, being approximately equi-distant from numerous cell sites, occupies a channel simultaneously throughout the cellular system. This may impose a heavy switching load on the cellular switch, which may continually try to hand the call off among the numerous cell sites, each of which thinks it's got a close location to the mobile unit. It may also cause interference with other calls on the same frequency. It is also possible that the cellular phone's transmitter, aboard the aircraft, would cause interference with the navigation or communication radio equipment aboard the same plane. When the plane's autopilot, having been misguided by the interfering signal on a coupled approach, attempts to land the plane somewhere _near_ the airport rather than on it, people on the ground may get hurt (not to mention the danger to people on the plane). This is why the operation of most portable electronic devices is prohibited in flight. > It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane > once it lands. Why did the FCC prohibit this as well? As the original article described, it would be difficult to ensure that the use ends as the plane takes off. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 19 Sep 90 01:40:49 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12181@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!ellisndh@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) writes: > The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is > actually ringing on the other end. When you hear a 'ring', it > probably is not at the same time that it is ringing on the other end. > I don't know how people supposedly send messages by letting the phone > ring a certain number of times. What you say is certainly true today, in most electronic switches. It was not always true. In the #5 Crossbar and most earlier electromechanical switches, the ringback tone is synchronized with the actual ringing applied to the calling party's line. These stories are probably history from a few years to a couple of decades ago. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site? Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 22:05:27 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers |I haven't seen a device that will do this, but it isn't that tough to |design. You could program your Watson or other voice mail board to do |it for you. The major problem is how do you dial into the device to |change the programming, if it's already forwarded and you only have |one phone line at home? |Answer: Have the thing unforward for a short period if it receives N |calls in quick succession. I've looked at another method (call it Hal), but have not spent much time on it. Don't use call-forwarding. Rather, use 3-way calling. Set up autoanswer with TT decoder driving Hal driving TT encoder. You call it up. Hal answers. You feed it a password, and a desired number. It flashes the line, grabs the 2nd {logical, not physical} 'pair', dials the number, flashes again. You hear ringing, answer, talk, etc. Problems we've thought of so far: Supervision/timeout: How do you assure that Hal will not get hung? Possible solutions: CTCSS (a subaudible tone encode/decode scheme used in the two way radio business. Also called PL -- the Galvin Mfg. trademark. While frequencies around 100 hz. are used there, something above 3000 might be more usable in this application. When Hal hears no tone for 1 minute, he goes back on hook until rerung. If a ring counter reaches 15 rings, hardware counter reboots Hal. Security: Write the software so he CANNOT dial anything other than seven digits. (Unit is to be located in a state with a PUC-mandated "if it's toll, it's gotta have a '1' first rule" so any call would be local. Flat rate service is the norm. Thus, if the software is intact, no abuser, even with passwords, could do anything but tie up Hal. Note the the incoming call has NO way to directly dial the outgoing number -- Hal must. (Oh, yes, 976 blocking is there, too ;-]) Be extra-sure: order the line with no default carrier. Sequence: Will that CO allow the second flash (to tie the ends together) before getting supervision from the call Hal dialed? (Some do, others don't) If not, how do you identify that the far end has answered, was busy, etc? Even if you do, how do you convince the called party to hang on until you get connected? (i.e. "Please stand by for an important call.") One important advantage to this method is that Hal could automatically forward 'incoming' calls with no touchtones (within x seconds) to the 'control' house. This gives you automatic incoming service from the distant town, too. Net-comments? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM pob 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Local Calling Numbers Date: 19 Sep 90 01:37:33 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12178@accuvax.nwu.edu>, matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) writes: > With NJ Bell, you have the option of getting unlimited local calling, > which is an option I have on my phone. For about $9 a month, I have > unlimited calling to about 83 exchanges. Note that NJ Bell offers untimed local calling only to residential customers. Businesses are charged message units for calls within the local calling area, and intra-state toll for all other calls. A message unit elapses every five minutes, and costs about 5.5 cents. You get 50 message units per month before you get charged for them. The 50 applies to the account, not per line. > ... a suggestion about making a list of local exchanges ... They did that for you. Look in the preface of your NJ Bell directory. They publish a list of the prefixes in your local calling area. > ...Another good feature > available is Selective Calling. Which allows you to have 20 hours of > calling to a exchange that is maybe a little out of your 'free > exchanges'. This, too, is only available to residence subscribers in NJ. It is offered only to points which would otherwise be a ten of fifteen cent call for the initial period, and only intra-LATA. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Mark Wilkins Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Date: 18 Sep 90 05:54:28 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 This is a little different than the problem being dealt with in the earlier thread, but an associate had a very strange experience and I was curious if anyone had any idea how it could come about. This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home. A rather mercenary discussion between two college students was recorded, in which they described such matters as exchanging various social favors in return for finding each other jobs. In particular, one of them said something like "She told me I couldn't have another part-time job at the same time if I wanted this one. I was thinking I could recommend you..." "Great," said the other. "If I do it," said the first, "will you buy me clothes, and take me out to dinner?" At first, she just assumed this was crosstalk of some particularly nasty kind, although the voices were much more clear than they often are when crosstalk is a problem. However, the next day a person she'd been interviewing for a job came in and said that he was unavailable, but he knew the perfect person. Instantly, everything clicked. He had been the one whose conversation was recorded on the phone. Apparently he had a sophistcated auto-dial speaker phone, either with more than one line or with three-way calling. The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way call? Or did this have to be intentional? Ignore, for the moment, the possibility of a strange switching error. Specifically, do many types of production phone equipment have bugs which could cause this sort of thing? As it turns out, the position was not funded by higher-ups and therefore nobody got the job. However, it is good to know that things like this can happen, I think, because such accidents could cause significant damage. Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 10:11:04 -0400 From: Jay Libove Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable In article <11803@accuvax.nwu.edu> sherpa!rac@uunet.uu.net (Roger Cornelius) writes: >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. Interesting. I was told that if I wanted not only the amazingly huge and complex (put in a wall plate, yeah right, could've done it myself EXCEPT that my apartment complex didn't want to let me f*** with THEIR wires) but also wanted to actually make them do work and install another whole wire, I'd pay for all of the time (well, at least I'd have gotten a little more for my money) and equipment involved. Given that the network interface box on the building was a good hundred or more feet from where the wire would have to enter my apartment, I took my chances on sharing the existing four-wire line for two phone lines, rather than pay even more. Now I'm sorry about it, since I do get crosstalk. It just seem stupid that, now that we "own" the wires between the network interface unit and our phones, the phone company gets off providing unacceptable service just because that's typical. If I want another phone line, I should get another phone _line_ - the standard shouldn't be to mix and match signals in a known unclean electronic fashion. Jay Libove libove@libove.det.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove Detroit ACT/Ultrix Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Farmington Hills, Michigan and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones Organization: The World Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 11:54:52 GMT In Volume 10, Issue 655, Michael Gammal writes: >I reside in both Canada and the US from time to time, and wanted to >subscribe to Sprint. I dialed 1-800-877-4000 and asked to subscribe. >They put me on hold for a moment then asked me for information (name, >phone, address...etc). I gave them both my American and Canadian ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >numbers, and as soon as the representative heard the Canadian number, ^^^^^^^ >he said "that's a Canadian number right?". So I said "yes" and then >they became rude saying you can't sign up, you can't make calls from >canada, and then hung up on me. Well, it took me a second reading of this paragraph to notice that you'd given them a U.S. number as well. Presumably they went into "Canadian" mode when they heard the second number, and ignored all previous evidence that they were dealing with a customer who had a U.S. phone. Of course, their terminating the conversation in such a rude fashion, without giving you a chance to explain your circumstances, was inexcusable. Anyhow, the "You can't make calls from Canada" contradicts Sprint's own literature. According to their September bill insert, "You can ...[use] your FONCARD for calls from Canada to the U.S. Simply dial 1-800-877-8000 and complete the call as you usually do with your FONCARD." Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #658 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14090; 20 Sep 90 2:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28257; 20 Sep 90 1:00 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15987; 19 Sep 90 23:57 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:26:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #659 BCC: Message-ID: <9009192326.ab10638@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:25:44 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 659 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Vicraj T. Thomas] Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990) [Laird Heal] Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More [Rich Sims] Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! [Brian Litzinger] Re: Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!) [Carl Moore] Re: MCI As Slamming King [Tom Ohmer] MCI Slams Me Again [Chris Johnson] Help For a Telecom Illiterate [Mike Jezierski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Vicraj T. Thomas" Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) Date: 19 Sep 90 17:10:23 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson In article <12062@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Which reminds me of why many Americans don't experience such problems > in other countries. They carry a card which is accepted for telephone > calls around the world. It's called the AT&T Calling Card. It works > because AT&T established agreements with countless foreign telecom > agencies. It works from hotels, public phones -- U-name-it. I was in the transit lounge of the Tokyo airport this summer and wanted to call somebody in the city. I didn't have any yen with me but I did have my AT&T calling card. There were two kinds of phones in the lounge -- regular KDD (did I get the name right?) phones that took coins and the KDD debit card and a USADirect phone. I talked to a KDD operator using the USADirect phone but she said I couldn't use my AT&T calling card or my Visa to make a local call. I got the same answer from the regular KDD phone. So Mr. Higdon, the AT&T card is not as "universal" as you might think. It is however a great card to have for calling the US from almost anywhere in the world, including India which was a runner-up for this newsgroups "Worst Telecom Network in the World" award. If I was going to be in Japan for longer than the hour and a half at the airport, I could have easily bought a KDD debit card and made all the local calls I wanted. Try getting a calling card in the USA without a "permanent" address. vic@cs.arizona.edu Dept. of Computer Science ..!{uunet|noao}!arizona!vic University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 ------------------------------ From: Laird Heal Subject: Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 22:54:56 GMT In article <12104@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >In article , one of our Canadian readers reports on >To which, our Moderator replies: >>whatever service they want; but why was AT&T smashed to pieces in the >>process? PAT] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [accord with emphasized text omitted] > I submit it was caused by utter corporate arrogance toward the >Federal government. Um, have your telephone bills gone DOWN since divestiture? The breakup allowed the now-independent subsidiaries to enter and compete in other fields of business. Where did the monies used to invest in those other business activities come from? Were the shareholders' dividends reduced? > When the Feds did come back over the hill, they were armed to the >teeth, and Ma Bell simply had no good answers. Students of the detail IBM fought off their case. Ma may have reached out and touched more of the citizens, but they both have high thrones. > Ma Bell, actually hoisted by her own petard of technology, committed >hari-kari. But, like good sci-fi, she exploded into nine pieces that >live today. A lot of her DNA still runs through their veins. And, Once she found out what Uncle Sam was doing, she discovered she liked it. While the Bell system might have held onto long-distance primacy more creatively, as you point out local lines are still locked up as tight as a drum. > Now, Dear Moderator, you yourself are a lifelong resident of one of >the more visibly nefarious children of Ma Bell ... Illinois Bell. You I spent last year living in Cook County with Ameritech's service. Each call carries a charge, even if only $.03. Finding out how much a call will cost or did cost is painful when possible. Service was reasonable but, for instance, my nickel call to Tymnet was fraught with static. I could make a long-distance call to South Bend Indiana at 14.4Kbps while the five-mile one-hop link could not maintain 1200 bps. Here in New Hampshire things are much better, although the line costs a little more. The 'local' calling area runs about 15 miles each way. I also, to consternate the LATA-holics, am listed in a Massachusetts phone book and dial at least a dozen 508 exchanges in seven digits from 603. >challenged, I can fill five or more Digests with abuses of the public >trust that only one*small*individual observed and even participated in > ... but they never made an addict of me!> Don't send them to this Digest - write a book, then get a lawyer to edit the unprintables out, get a ghostwriter to add some drama and a comic artist for comic relief, and call it "Ma Bell on the Half Shell". Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 18:52:11 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More eli@pws.bull.com wrote: > (You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?) Nope, but I'll try and answer the questions anyway. > Could you please detail for me [us] your 'calling patterns' > So I can determine why you paid higher rates than ATT rates when you > tried out Sprint??? Which rate schedules did you compare? > (e.g. sprint plus vs. reach out or normal rates?) I thought I did that! I live in South Florida, just north of Miami, and the majority of my calls were to California, specifically the area around San Diego. Apparently the Sprint rates were distance-based, while the AT&T rates were strictly time based. The calls were also (as much as possible) made at the lowest (night) rates for both companies. The comparison I made was between AT&T's ROA plan and Sprint's regular plan. I don't think it was called Sprint Plus, but I'm not sure. This was a couple of years ago. > What exchanges were you calling from and to? Ouch! Don't have the bills any more. All outbound calls were from the 305-431 exchange. > What was the disconnect rate? When and how many calls? I didn't mention any "disconnects". The phrase I used was "failed connections". Sorry if that was ambiguous. I meant a failure to reach the number I was calling in the first place. At this point, I couldn't possibly supply numbers, dates, or times. There were several times I was unable to get the dialled number at all, although this was the least of the problems. The main problem was an excessively long time between placing the call and the connection being made (apparently), or "busy circuits". Since the vast majority of the calls were computer-originated, via modem, the computer would usually give up trying. Apparently, my computer has even less tolerance for bad telephone service than I do! :-) In all fairness, I have to admit that when I managed to place a call and get a connection, the line quality was usually good for the voice calls. I don't know if I could have "heard a pin drop", but I wasn't particularly listening for that sound. Data connections were no more than "so-so", but this may not have been a problem with Sprint's equipment/lines. For what it's worth, I also tried the same test sometime later, but using "casual caller" access to Sprint's service, following receipt of a fairly large volume of Sprint's propaganda. The results were even worse. It's entirely possible, I suppose, that Sprint has *now* gotten their act together and is the finest LD company in the world (but I doubt it). At this point, however, I'll stick with AT&T, simply because I've *never* had any problems with them, and it's not worth all the hassles just to try and save a small amount of money, which never happened in the first place. BTW - In comparison to many of the readers of this group, I'm extremely "unworldly" in matters telephonic. I just want to be able to have the silly thing do what I expect ... which it does with AT&T and did not with Sprint. ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 19:00:17 GMT In article <12197@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmf@chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Fischer) writes: >When this joker arrived, he was incredibly hostile! He said he had >been monitoring the line and every time he called, "some fax machine >or something" answered the line. So I tell him that it's a modem for >dial in and out of our little Xenix box. Now he's really hostile! "You >are using a standard dial tone line, what you get is what you get ... If >you want a data line, pay for it. You people abuse the system, but >it's gonna change..." I ran through this exact same gambit with Pac*Bell in California. The answer was: Pac*Bell gaurentees a certain set of specifications for voice lines and "data lines". I'm guessing that the specs are different for the two kinds of line. Our story is: Our Telebit trailblazer began having very slow transmission rates. We called Pac*Bell and complained that the line was faulty. They asked us what we used it for and we explained about the modem. At they point the pitch about misusing the phone system started and that we should get a "data line" if we expected the modem to work. I explained that our modem was specially designed to operate in the same bands as the human voice and that we didn't need a "data line". They didn't buy my argument, but were willing to send someone out to look at the line. When the service person showed up we watched him test our voice line. Inside the lid of his test box were two charts with the specifications that the line had to meet. One for data lines and one for voice lines. On the third test the box reported that the line failed to meet the specifications for a voice line. So off went the service person, and the Pac*Bell performed some central office magic, and lo-and-behold our trailblazer was back up to speed. The moral is: At least at Pac*Bell, they guarentee a certain set of specifications with each type of service. If your modem will operate within the specs of a standard voice line, then that is all you need, all you have to pay for, and all your using. Also, I believe the reason the phone companies become hostile is because they believe you are stealing service when you run data over a voice line. They mistakenly think you are using more than you are paying for. Disclaimer: State Laws and Regulations vary. So will your mileage. <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian <> Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 10:27:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!) Jeff Carroll mentions three bay-area prefixes, so I looked them up. (Area code 415, but to move to 510 later.) 521 is Alameda. 653, 655 are both Oakland. ------------------------------ From: Tom Ohmer Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King Date: 19 Sep 90 16:45:41 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus From article <12195@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz): < I had a similar experience with MCI. For a time, I was making a So did I. My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from Michigan ;-). They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that he was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.). I was calling Florida collect and got an answering machine, so I told the operator "never mind." She said "Thanks for using MCI." No big surprise here, I figured MCI was the called party's carrier, since the call was collect. Then I called back direct to leave a message on the machine and got another MCI thank you. Wait a minute! This isn't right. I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested the switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you ?" "No." Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service. Anyway, after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better now. I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise. I'm waiting to see. ;-) < they immediately credited my account (without haggle) for $10, to cover < the original switchover, plus the switch back to AT&T. Pleasantly surprisingly did the same for me. Do they do this so often that it is handled so casually? < Given John's latest account of MCI practices--- << What a slimepit! < --- the extra caution is not without merit. Oh, yeah, I had OBT put a flag on my account allowing future changes in my service to be made by me in writing ONLY. 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 ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: MCI Slams Me Again Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:00:22 GMT Well, they did it again! A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes. After some wrangling, and about a year or so, they finally credited my local phone co. account (U.S. West) with the change order service fees. The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome to MCI's 1+ service. Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor, and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING? Yes, in fact I did. So I dialed the 700-555-4141 number to see who my long distance carrier really was, and lo-and-behold, it said MCI. Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI again, without my permission. Can you tell that I'm annoyed? I'm writing MCI a nasty letter, and I'd like to send copies of it to U.S. West, AT&T and oh, say the attorney general, too. I can get addresses for the former and latter easily enough, but which address for AT&T would be the right one for maximum attention and effectivity? Maybe I need to send it to several places. I don't have time for screwing around like this, and I don't like having to pay someone for something I didn't want. I want to get MCI's attention once and for all. I'd appreciate any suggestions. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 09:46 EST From: The VAX Commander Subject: Help For a Telecom Illiterate Patrick: I, being a new reader of TELECOM Digest would like some basic definitions so I could figure out some of what you guys are talking about... What are COCOTS? and what is this NXX/NOX for dialing thing??? Is this a new type of phone number we're supposed to get? Help! Mike Jezierski Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis IWNQ500@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU standard disclaimer [Moderator's Note: Once again, COCOT = ustomer wned, oin perated elephone. NXX is simply a way of abbreviating the three digit area code or local prefix. Some good files in the Telecom Archives to assist you are the glossaries. To view the archives, and pull files of your choice, use the ftp command: ftp lcs.mit.edu. You would then use anonymous login, with your name@user.site for a password. Then, 'cd telecom-archives'. Enjoy your visit there! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #659 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15384; 20 Sep 90 3:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20858; 20 Sep 90 2:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28257; 20 Sep 90 1:00 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 0:17:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #660 BCC: Message-ID: <9009200017.ab14054@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Sep 90 00:17:09 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 660 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Paul Frommeyer] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Craig Jackson] Re: Name That Tone [Walter Kemmerer] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Tad Cook] Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill! [Tad Cook] Re: Telecom in Alaska [Mike Jezierski] CLASSPLUS Services [William Degnan] Feedback on Books [Mary J. Leugers] Looking For Call Pattern Analysis Service [C. David Covington] Canadian Call-Me Card [Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Frommeyer Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin Date: 19 Sep 90 17:59:39 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. [various complaints about divestiture from our Moderator] [various praises of divestiture and complaints about our Moderator] My .02, for what it's worth: I'm afraid my views on divestiture parallel those of our esteemed Moderator. I think the divestiture thing looked good on paper, but has proven to be less than great in practice. The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene, was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone service the most. I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company if I so choose. Until that free market choice exists, the One Big Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small Monopolies. If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's still have a monopoly on phone service? A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and video, to name two. Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for the telcos in the form of the local cable television company. Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be monopolies...! OK, now you can all flame away! :-) Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer Network Sorcerer and Telecomm Hacker Apple Computer Incorporated Internet: corwin@apple.com Disclaimer: "My opinion, not Apple's","No comment" ------------------------------ From: Craig Jackson drilex1 Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 19 Sep 90 18:51:58 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA About the difference between the timing of ring-back and the actual rings, I think there are several things going on here: 1. I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the ring voltage to the other phone. (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm talking about the early part of the century here.) 2. In the days of mechanical ring-back generation, the ring voltage and the ring-back voltage came from the same generator and interrupter, so there really was no reason why they couldn't be synchronized. 3. Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the ring voltage may still be mechanically generated. But they aren't related closely. 4. There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a locally-generated ring signal. These were nearly always 1/2 ring out-of-sync. 5. With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any "ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567". In this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO. I don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal still comes from the CO. I'm sure there are a number of errors in the above, but John Higdon will correct them. :-) I'm pretty sure I've got the general information right. Note that it is in the interest of the Telco to give you ringback, approximately at the same rate as a normal phone rings. It allows you to make a more informed judgement as to whether your party is there, and probably allows you to do so sooner, thus freeing up common equipment sooner. Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb} ------------------------------ From: Walter Kemmerer Subject: Re: Name That Tone Date: 19 Sep 90 18:13:00 GMT Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Jeff, there sure seems to be a lot of us with this problem these days! I just completed surviving a round of these kind of calls on a four to five minute interval for about eight hours. Like you, it seemed to be a comm device at the other end, but it sure didn't like my modem and Procomm. The local telephone company (go for a supervisor to get something done) was quite nice about all this, and put a trap on the line to track down the call. It was coming from another local telephone company, and they got together and managed to contact the owner of the originating number. They didn't know what could be causing it, but when the other telephone company cut the service off at that number, the calls disappeared! This fixed it for that day, but darn if it didn't come back the next day at noon! Went through the rounds again (this was a Saturday), and the local telehone company actually contacted the supervisor I had been working with at home. He in turn contacted the other telephone company office and just happened to catch the same technician that he had worked with the previous day. They went after it again, and this time isolated the problem; seems the customer at the other telephone company had a home burgular alarm that had been fried in a storm that came through the night that the phone calls first started. So it had been calling (my home number) for assistance... What bothers me about the problem is that if I wasn't a lurker here, I wouldn't have known what to ask to get the darned problem to go away! What bothers me even more is that the folks at the point of origination never noticed that their alarm system was dead! Good luck ... the first folks I talked to just told me to take the telephone off hook, too! Walt Kemmerer Sugar Land, TX wkemmerer@sugar.hackercorp.com 72737.563@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Tad.Cook%ssc.UUCP@hpubvwa.uucp Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 18 Sep 90 05:14:00 GMT In article <12175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > An article in today's "Wall Street Journal" (9/14/90 p B1) states that > the FCC banned the use of cellular phones in planes on the ground > because they figured that people wouldn't hang up when the flight took > off. > How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the > ground? Because it hogs a frequency used by many users in different cells. The great thing about cellular phone systems is that they are very efficient in terms of spectrum usage. This is because as you move from cell to cell, you are shifted by the cell site to different frequencies. Two adjacent cells never use the same frequencies, but the frequency that you are on may be used by another user two or three cells away. The system depends on everyone being on the ground and running low power. Otherwise it cannot function. When you use a cellular phone from a plane, many cell sites can hear your signal, so you end up hogging that frequency throughout the entire system. A few cellular callers in the air could cause major problems. > It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane > once it lands. Why did the FCC prohibit this as well? Because they were afraid the users would not stop talking once the plane took off. I also have a feeling that they may have been nervous about possible interference with the plane's various electronic systems for navigation and communications. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Tad.Cook%ssc.UUCP@hpubvwa.uucp Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill! Date: 18 Sep 90 05:24:28 GMT In article <12176@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: > C'mon, folks. Enough whining about Sprint "putting it in writing". > Save a few ATT bills, switch to Sprint, and compare the quality of > service as well as the price for your calls. That should be plenty of > writing for you. Use 10333 if you just want to try out Sprint's > standard rates. If you make $8 of long distance per month, sign up > for Sprint Plus and you'll get night rates from 5pm on -- that's about > 10 cents per minute anywhere in US. I agree with Eli! Enough bashing of carriers because they are not AT&T! I have two lines at home, one uses MCI, the other Sprint as the default carriers. I have had nothing but great service from each. At work we use AT&T. They have been getting better, but for a long time Sprint's audio quality was FAR SUPERIOR to AT&T. This varied with the location called, but Sprint was always better. Now as AT&T gradually upgrades it's massive embedded plant, they are getting better too. Now unlike John Higdon, I don't run Trailblazers or HSTs at 9600 bps, but my various 2400bps modems have had no problems with Sprint (or MCI). During the time when we had to choose a default carrier, I ran some rough tests by ear, using the 10XXX access. For most places, MCI and Sprint sounded superior. At one time before MCI retired their older microwave gear, calls from Seattle to the east coast didn't sound so hot, but now they are fine. Was Sprint the first carrier to offer SS7? 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: Tue, 18 Sep 90 09:23 EST From: "Mike Jezierski....The VAX Commander!" Subject: Re: Telecom in Alaska The Alaskans use a RCA satellite all to themselves. It's Called Aurora F5 (or it could also be called SATCOM F5). It can only be seen in the Western US because it's so far West so it could be picked up in Alaska. Mike Jezierski IWNQ500@INDYVAX.BITNET IWNQ500@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis This is my view because this this place won't pay me enough for my opinions ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 11:37:14 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: CLASSPLUS Services Organization: Communications Network Solutions, Austin, TX A recent update from Northern Telecom reports that three new flavors of enhanced services will be available to the operating companies over the next three upcomng Batch Change Supplements. Calling Name Delivery NTXE52AA Anonymous Caller Rejection NTXP12AA "The party you dialed does not accept anonymous calls. Please hang up and call back with your caller identification unblocked." And this one (which _I_ expect will be interesting): Call Waiting Display NTCN97AA You get to see the caller ID of a camped-on call so you can decide if it is worth interrupting your call in progress. 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: Tue, 18 Sep 1990 13:17:08 EDT From: "Mary J. Leugers" Subject: Feedback on Books In an attempt to further my knowledge of data communications, I made a trip to my neighborhood computer bookstore and looked at several books. I was wondering if anyone could give me feedback for use in deciding what book(s) might be best. The titles are: Basic Data Communications by William Beyda Data Communications, Networks and Systems published by SAMS w/ Thomas Bartee as Editor Handbook of Computer Communications Standards; Vols. 1 through 3 by William Stallings Data Communication Technology by James Martin Thanks! Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications Mary Leugers 1971 Neil Avenue Graduate Research Associate 210 Baker Systems Columbus, OH 43210-1271 E-mail: Phone: (614) 292-8444 leugers@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Fax: (614) 292-7852 Home: (614) 421-1552 ------------------------------ From: "C. David Covington" Subject: Looking For Call Pattern Analysis Service Date: 19 Sep 90 14:02:19 GMT Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville I need to send someone my call detail or at least my calling pattern and have them tell me how much it is going to cost me if I select AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or Brand X as my default carrier. I will provide as much information as necessary in order to obtain an accurate estimate of my costs. I assume the company would receive a copy of my bill in paper form or possibly on mag tape and return to me an analysis of the bottom line using the various carriers available. Anyone can do crude estimates, but it would take a company or individual with a full-time commitment to maintaining the latest tariff information in their data base to be effective in this kind of task. Is this kind of service available? How much does it typically cost? What kind of information do I need to provide for the analysis? C. David Covington (WA5TGF) cdc@uafeleg.uark.edu 501-575-6583 Asst Prof, Elec Eng Univ of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 also Strategic Telecommunications, Inc. 501-521-0375 [Moderator's Note: One consulting organization doing precisely the sort of thing you want which comes to mind is a firm called "Telco Research", in (I think) Nashville, TN. They've been around for years, and I think they may have been bought out recently by one of the BOC's, but I am not sure which one. I think some of the readers here are also in this line of work, and perhaps you will receive some direct correspondence from folks who can help you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 08:39 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@fin.3mail.3com.com Subject: Canadian Call Me Card Mark Brader describes the Bell Canada 'Call Me Card.' The US version of this card has been available from AT&T for quite some time now, but experimentation described in this Digest about a year ago revealed that Call-Me cards could be used to call anywhere on most non-AT&T long distance services. Dangerous, edg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #660 ******************************  ISSUES 661-662 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 662 APPEARS NEXT, THEN 661.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11503; 21 Sep 90 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03462; 21 Sep 90 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19020; 21 Sep 90 1:10 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:44:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #662 BCC: Message-ID: <9009210044.ab11597@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Sep 90 00:43:40 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 662 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [John Higdon] Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [John Higdon] Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Tim Oldham] Re: Call-Me Card [Leland F. Derbenwick] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Tom Gray] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Lee Chen] Re: Call-Me Card [Lars Poulsen] Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! [Norman Soley] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim] Re: Divestiture - Keep on Truckin [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines Date: 20 Sep 90 00:30:22 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Sep 19 at 21:40, Rolf Meier writes: > Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a > "voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. Before we go around with this again, let me share with you a comment by a "deep throat" within Pac*Bell. The reason telcos want to charge you extra for "data" dialups is "revenue enhancement" -- no more, no less. It has nothing to do with traffic patterns (business usage is metered and charged anyway, and residential use occurs off-peak) or bandwidth considerations. It is just another in a long line of "extras" that the telco has managed to convince the PUC it has justification for grabbing more. Like voice usage, data usage is all over the map in terms of network usage. So please, let's not go making up a lot of garbage justifications for extra charges for lines used for data. > Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a > lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply > more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This > costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay > the extra. Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of the position fails as well. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Date: 20 Sep 90 01:59:46 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Sep 20 at 0:17, Craig Jackson writes: > 1. I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the > ring voltage to the other phone. (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm > talking about the early part of the century here.) Sort of. The ring voltage generated by the old rotary ring generators was rich in harmonics. A high-pass version (with the 20 Hz filtered out) was sent back to the caller. > 3. Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the > ring voltage may still be mechanically generated. But they aren't > related closely. In electronic switches, the ring voltage is generated electronically. The cadence of the actual ring and the ringback tone is the same in normal cases, but may be "out of phase". > 4. There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to > sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a > locally-generated ring signal. These were nearly always 1/2 ring > out-of-sync. Not only out of sync, but the cadence is different in a standard 1A2 key system than that of a standard CO. In that case, the ringing of a key phone common audible bears little relation to the ringback that the caller is hearing. > 5. With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any > "ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that > says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567". In > this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO. I > don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal > still comes from the CO. What you describe is DID (direct inward dialing). In that case, the call is delivered to the PBX as if it was the end office. Ring voltage comes from the PBX and the ringback tone, busy (if appropriate), or even any intercept recording is supplied by the PBX. When a DID call is answered, the PBX even supplies answer supervision (usually via battery reversal on the trunk) back to the telco CO. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tim Oldham Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:02:03 GMT BT has set up a trial "Nuisance Call Bureau" in Canterbury, Kent. I'm not involved in this area of work, or any part of the telecom network, but I believe it's intended to help victims in whatever way it can, presumably including tracing and location mapping. My back copies of internal magazines show that there is a `BT Task Force examining the problem'. All I can say is ask your local BT office for advice and more on this bureau. The cops should be involved. Standard disclaimer applies. I speak for myself, not BT. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 08:16:39 EDT From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: Call-Me Card Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12290@accuvax.nwu.edu>, msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family > members. The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who > couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave > them your Calling Card number. Or ones whose roommates can't be trusted not to steal a peek and give copies to their friends, etc., etc., etc. This has been available in the U.S. (from AT&T, at least) for a few years. (I would imagine that all the long-distance carriers have it by now.) Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Date: 20 Sep 90 12:47:24 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. I would ask the Moderator to use his perogative to end the thread on these "jokes". Perhaps you could refer those interested to the alt.moron or the alt.two_year_old. [Moderator's Note: I have to agree that the 'answering machine messages' and 'inside humor' threads are getting to be sort of tiring. There are too many other things to talk about. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Talking Head Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Date: 20 Sep 90 17:26:35 GMT Organization: New York University wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) writes: >This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, >received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home. I get these on my office answering machines quite often. The conversations that I overhear usually concern me or my data centers. Eighty percent of the time its interesting in a negative sort of way. >The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone >inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way >call? Or did this have to be intentional? Ignore, for the moment, >the possibility of a strange switching error. Specifically, do many >types of production phone equipment have bugs which could cause this >sort of thing? Sure, quite a few people who call me use either a) antiquated AT&T PBXs with three-way calling or b) brand new systems that are set to the wrong PBX selector. When they call me with three-way, i.e. when they're talking to someone and want to bridge me in, my answering machine will answer and normally they will either hang up or leave a message and then hang up. The trick is this: with the old AT&T PBX the flash is signalled by going onhook then offhook in a short interval; this causes the PBX to hang up the third call and lets the primary continue hir call with the original called party. (with the new switches, the flash will not work properly if the PBX selector is set incorrectly) Sometimes, the PBX will not hang up the call and you will continue to talk to the third party... Next time you initiate a third way call and get an answering machine, be sure your third party is properly disconnected, else hir answering machine may confer your conversation at a later time. >As it turns out, the position was not funded by higher-ups and >therefore nobody got the job. However, it is good to know that things >like this can happen, I think, because such accidents could cause >significant damage. Damage? That depends on to whom. I'm usually quite entertained when individuals who work for me call and say they can't do something or be somewhere then promptly inform someone that I am a gullible fool. A better example: someone was trying to sell me a very expensive car; he called me and left a message stating that he couldn't do better than $NNN,NNN; then he goes on to tell some lady (turns out to be his ex-wife) that the car was as good as sold and that I would never try to negotiate a price that would even get near the $NN,NNN that they paid for it two years hence. Well, you can imagine that I didn't quite pay what HE was asking and instead negotiated with HER and got a Big Cash Savings. The Bell System at work. You just have to make it work for you. Forgive me if I've rambled. I'm a bit surprised people haven't caught on to this neat little phenom yet. I "use" it all the time. Lee Chen garif@nyu.edu ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Call-Me Card Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:48:41 GMT In article <12290@accuvax.nwu.edu> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill introduces a new >restricted Calling Card, called the Call-Me Card. >The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family >members. The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who >couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave >them your Calling Card number. AT&T has been issuing these for a while; several of my friends with kids at college have been giving these to their kids; it's colloquially referred to at an "E.T." card (after the little guy who needed to "phone home"). Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Norman Soley Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! Reply-To: Norman Soley Organization: Oracle Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 19:55:49 GMT In article <12347@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) writes: >Also, I believe the reason the phone companies become hostile is >because they believe you are stealing service when you run data over a >voice line. They mistakenly think you are using more than you are >paying for. Once upon a time someone told me that the reason a data line costs more was because a voice call used less bandwidth when it was multiplexed with other calls on a trunk than a data call did (accompanied with a rather hokey explanation about voice having lots of silent parts but data was always "noisy") at the time I bought it (hey, give me a break I was in High School) but now I have all this fancy technical education which tells me I was probably slid a line. Well was I? Norman Soley - Systems Administrator - Oracle Corporation Canada 155 University Ave. Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario (416)-362-7953 X646 nsoley@cnseq1.oracle.com uunet!torsqnt!cnseq1!nsoley "These opinions are mine, not the company's" ------------------------------ From: Hui Lin Lim Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 13 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT Organization: HP Singapore > I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking > whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for > the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it require an ISDN switch etc? Thanks, HuiLin Lim HP Singapore limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:24:22 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin > The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene, > was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part > with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the > local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone > service the most. The divestiture was forced by AT&T's abuse of its monopoly power and position, namely cross-subsidization that was expressly to avoid and ruin competition. Existing monopolies are not expressily forbidden, though they may be regulated, the formation of new ones may be blocked. > I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like > Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company > if I so choose. Until that free market choice exists, the One Big > Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small > Monopolies. If local telco's engage in the same practices as they divesify, they may be subject to the same accusations and actions. > If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T > in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another > service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's > still have a monopoly on phone service? Not being a lawyer or sematicist, I'm not sure what you mean by a "public utility", but it's not a publicly owned utility, in the sense that some cities or counties have municipaly owned power, gas, etc. As a private corporation, it has a fudiciary duty to serve the interests of it's stockholders, not the public at large. It has some moral and civic duty for the latter, but it's the responsibility of the regulators to define and decide what those are, not the company. > A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good > would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with > what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the > local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is > at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven > pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and > video, to name two. It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies. They can be restricted in operation and penalized for violations, but that is not the same thing as just breaking them up. The violations must be pervasive and intentional before that remedy is permitted. > Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs > in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous > posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for > the telcos in the form of the local cable television company. > Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be > monopolies...! With regard to this and Bob's Fone Company, if the means of distribution, namely the wires, cables, etc. were municipaly installed and owned, like water, sewers (and some gas and electric), then your competition for dial tone would be practical. Unfortunately, until some community somewhere takes such an approach or it becomes a state law, don't hold your breath. Then, of course, since history repeats itself, we can look forward to "slamming" (e.g. MCI thread) by local tone providers :-) Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #662 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11668; 21 Sep 90 4:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03462; 21 Sep 90 2:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19020; 21 Sep 90 1:10 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:11:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #661 BCC: Message-ID: <9009210011.ab12265@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Sep 90 00:10:49 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 661 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Ross Miller via M. Solomon] ATM Handling of PINS [David Barts] Need Telex Numbers in England [Mathew Zank] Sleazy 900 Numbers [Robert M. Hamer] Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR [Donald Kimberlin] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Tad Cook] Intro to Telecom University Course: Help Sought [Bruce Klopfenstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 05:19:46 EDT From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant Subject: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Moderator's Note: Mr. Solomon kindly passed along this message which appeared recently in misc.consumers. PAT] From: miller@mali (Ross M. Miller) Newsgroups: misc.consumers Subject: AT&T Universal Card is not two cards in one Date: 17 Sep 90 21:19:57 GMT Reply-To: millerrm@crd.ge.com (Ross M. Miller) Organization: General Electric R&D Center In case any of you are under the impression (created by AT&T) that the AT&T Universal Card is both a bankcard and AT&T Credit/Calling Card in one, I have an interesting story for you. On a recent trip, I tried to use my new Universal Card in an AT&T credit card payphone by inserting it into the credit card slot. The payphone immediately rejected it as not being an AT&T credit card. Upon returning from my trip I calling AT&T and asked why the card would not work in their payphone and learned an interesting fact about the AT&T Universal Card. The fact: The AT&T Universal Card is simply a bankcard (VISA or Mastercard) with an AT&T credit card number embossed onto it. The magnetic stripe on the back of the card indicates that the card is only a bankcard and contains no information about the AT&T credit card. Hence, when run though a payphone (or any other device that reads the stripe), it is treated as a bankcard. This "feature" has two "gotchas": 1. As noted, standard AT&T credit card payphones will not read it. To charge calls you need to enter your credit card number manually. 2. In payphones that accept multiple types of cards, the card is treated as a bankcard, not an AT&T credit card. According to what AT&T told me this means that the 10% discount DOES NOT APPLY to calls made in this manner. Apparently, modern credit card technology cannot yet deal with magnetic stripes that contain "dual" identities, and so, some of the potential convenience of a combined bankcard/phonecard is, for now, lost. Ross Miller GE R&D Center millerrm@crd.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 12:09:14 pdt From: David Barts Subject: ATM Handling of PINS john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Do you think that he is capturing all those > PINs in the back room so that he can retire to Tahiti? I would lay > odds that the merchant does not record your PIN, which is normally > simply sent along with the rest of the encrypted transaction to the > banking center or network... Precisely. If the ATM terminals found in stores are anything like the ATMs in banks, it just encrypts the number on the card and the PIN and sends them off to the bank computer for verification. The merchant has no business knowing what your PIN is -- that is confidential information between you and your bank. The only information that the merchant needs to know is that (a) the PIN you entered is valid, (b) there are sufficient funds in your account to pay for the purchase, and (c) that funds have been successfully transferred to pay for the purchase. If anything, this represents an increase in security over credit cards (with which the merchant gets a slip with your complete credit card number and signature on it -- all the information needed to commit fraud). The major issue with these devices (and also with virtually any other non-cash method of payment) is what happens to the record of your purchases after the bills have been settled. The technology already exists so that a laser-scan cash register, ATM terminal, and mainframe database could be tied together to keep a detailed record of every item you purchase. (I don't know if it is being done anywhere, but it certainly COULD be.) Who gets access to this information, and what is it used for? Targeting junk-mail advertising (a minor annoyance)? Targeting junk phone calls (a major annoyance)? Paranoia aside :-), I have never used any of these new ATM's because all the ones in the Seattle area seem to stick you with a surcharge. Paying with a bank card may be more convenient, but only marginally so and the tiny amount of convenience isn't worth the fee for me. David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ From: Mathew Zank Subject: Need Telex Numbers in England Date: 19 Sep 90 23:05:17 GMT Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} I need to get some Telex or FAX numbers in England (U.K.) I do not feel like buying those $100 telex number books. Can anyone help me? Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi netcom!zank@apple.com -or- 0003690668@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: In some cases the Western Union manual assistance (operator) position can obtain *single* numbers for you if it is your intent to send the telex message at that time. Check your dialing instructions for how to reach the Western Union operator, but I think you dial '17' if you are on a WUTCO circuit. But if they are as understaffed and overloaded as in the past, you'll decide your time is worth money and buy the directory! The last time I had occassion to use WUTCO operator assistance (on a Saturday morning about 10 AM) I waited ten minutes on hold, with only the message 'All positions are busy, MOM ... MOM' flashing on my terminal screen every thirty seconds or so. (In telex parlance, MOM = 'One Moment Please'). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 08:22 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Sleazy 900 Numbers Not to revisit the sleazy-900-number topic too often (Patrick, should we perhaps have a separate Digest on that? Just kidding) a 30-year-old, IQ presumable > 100, or 120 or something like that, graduate student of mine showed me today a postcard she received. One side was blank, except for "URGENT NOTICE. PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY" printed diagnonally in _large_ block print across the card. The other was a jumble of print, with "FINAL ATTEMPT" in large letters prominently displayed, under which it said, "Dear C. A. Fortner, We are trying to reach you. _Your $5000 credit limit has been approved._ Call 1-900-230-2600* __Now__. (The __Now__ represents that it was double underlined. The asterisk by the phone number referred to _small_ type at the bottom of the card that said, "*1.95 per minute". Various other phrases were scattered across the "busy" face of the card such as "CREDIT APPROVED FOR" above her address, etc. (Except for the print on the first-class-postage-paid notice itself, the price of the phone call was the smallest print on the credit card. The organization was United Productions, Inc., 2300 West Sahara #820/Box 18, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102. Now, this intelligent, post-master's graduate student did not realize that the 900-number was one of the call-and-we-charge-as-much-as-we- want numbers. She brought the card to me just because she got a kick out of the pre-approval of a credit limit for which she hadn't applied, considering she is a poor graduate student. I don't know. As I said before, even being basically a libertarian at heart, I am beginning to think some sort of control is warrented. This card was designed deliberately to mislead, similarly to cards that in the past have come to elderly people in envelopes that looked like the envelopes that Social Security stuff comes in, and containing "bills" for "insurance" that the elderly hadn't requested. I am beginning to harden my position that the only thing that should be allowed to appear on a phone bill is the cost/charge of the phone call itself. Having an RBOC or similar monoply act as the billing agent for anyone it wants to seems to be inappropriate somehow. I suppose it might be problematic to define the "cost of the call itself," but some sort of solution could be worked out. Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion of the merits of the breakup of ATT lately is the fact that in many ways, ATT was behind the breakup. They wanted to get into computer/hardware/software/data/ data service etc. sales, and under their tariffs at the time were severely restricted. When they pushed to get the restrictions removed they were basically told they couldn't because they were a monopoly. So they solved that. They agreed to divest themselves of the monopoly portion of their business -- the RBOCs. They started out with some restrictions on what they could do, but my understanding is that some of those restrictions were "sunsetted" and some have been phased out according to a schedule and some are being phased out currently. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 0:15:15 CDT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR David writes : >When Ma offered TWX ... she did so with a dataset (modem to us folks) >run by a telephone that resembed a 565. You called up ... with a >special reserved area code...{example: (710)...},listened ... hit >the DATA button, and hung up the handset. >But as the years went by, Ma started having ... people complaining >about being billed for TWX calls that they had never made ... >So some 'brain' decided that rather than adjust a zillion wrong >numbers/month, it was easier to put exception code in the billing >software to bit bucket all TWX--->POTS {areacode} calls. (This was >easy ... as the TWX lines had those xx0 area codes.) In fact they were only 510, 610, 710, 810 and 910, David ...trash anything else. >But ... some smart user noted this, and installed a {transmitter >element in the phone associated with} ... his TWX. Presto-free LD! > I understand ... this spread like wildfire, it was YEARS before >Ma figured out she was getting had. I suspect she then tried to >back-bill some people, but that's locking the barn door after the >cow is gone. In fact, your tale is largely true. Ma had a plan to get every TWX over onto a "special exchange" in each major city called a WADS exchange (Wide Area Data Service -- Rule Number 14 is NEVER make the name something people can figure out; don't simply say it is the TWX exchange. In fact, WADS was a compartmented piece of a crossbar office. Yes, Virginia, they could compartment an "old" crossbar! It was all just good old "class-marking" the lines for a different rate treatment.) But herein lies some understanding of the slothfulness of the old monolith. The local exchange people were just slaveys of AT&T, and TWX was an AT&T product, not a local Telco product. The whole grand plan was organized and run from AT&T. The local slaveys only did as instructed, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Billing problems were AT&T's problems. So, it was a clever patch to avoid all the hassle by just scrapping obviously wrong numbers. The reasoning ran like: "Well, the locals probably have a lot of digit errors in what they are handling; we'll be getting a better handle on this mess when we get all the subscribers in WADS offices; there's NO way they could defraud the company from a TWX machine, because I don't know how to or our trusty installers out there will bust them in the field anyway; and the overhead for losing all those calls is less than the overhead we incur to try to take all those complaints. Just charge it off to operating expense. We'll get it back in the next rate case when we show how our expense is increasing." THAT, Dear Readers is another example of what can best be called the "Bell-Shaped Head." It is one of thousands of things that got Ma Bell lynched; the result of a 1913 "cost-plus contract with the public" that went so very wrong. It exemplifies why we are going through the throes of today. Many of those attitudes STILL pervade the minds of local Telco people, like to hear it or not. [Moderator's Note: Didn't they also have 410 as an area code, serving the New England area? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 20 Sep 90 16:46:47 GMT In article <12255@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halle@homxb.att.com (Jeffrey C Halle) writes: > From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu > (Jeff DePolo): > > Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at > > work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly > > say that their fiber optic network is second to none. > You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all > noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from > the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference > between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home > is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. This is BALONEY! I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission quality. So if Sprint leases their fiber circuits from AT&T (?!), how come AT&T can't get as good transmission quality as Sprint? In article <12187@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) writes: > For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than > AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher. > Admittedly, the cost difference was probably caused by my calling > patterns from down here in the southeast corner of the country out to > the west coast. WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package against Sprint's regular rates? 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: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Intro to Telecom University Course: Help Sought Date: 19 Sep 90 16:20:53 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. We are revising our curriculum at Bowling Green State University to reflect the changes in the electronic media industries. In this light, I am working on redesigning our introduction to broadcasting course to become an introduction to telecommunication course. A key portion of this course will be a technical overview of various telecommunication transmission systems in both broad- casting and telephony. I am seeking example syllabi, course descriptions, textbook citations, and any other useful input from colleagues in both industry and academia. Suggestions for continuing education workshops and other telecommunication tutorials that would help individuals with a non-technical background would also be appreciated (cost *is* a factor). Please send email to me directly. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #661 ******************************  ISSUES 661 AND 662 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 662 CAME BEFORE 661. ISSUE 663 IS NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12367; 21 Sep 90 4:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29203; 21 Sep 90 3:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03462; 21 Sep 90 2:19 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 1:54:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #663 BCC: Message-ID: <9009210154.ab28572@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Sep 90 01:54:25 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 663 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can AT&T "Attack" A Specific Carrier? [Charles H. Mingo] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dan Flak] Re: Alternate Call Forwarding [David Lemson] Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Mark Steiger] Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages [Gene Spafford] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hawkins Mingo Subject: Re: Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier? Date: 21 Sep 90 01:03:52 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Although most successful advertising consists of >positive statements about one's own products rather than negative >comments directed to one's competition, there is no law they cannot >advertise their competitor's shortcomings if they wish to do so, >naming those shortcomings specifically; libelous and slanderous >statements excluded, of course. Actually, making misleading claims about the competition is considered "unfair competition" and is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. It's not necessary that your claim be false, and the burden of proving truth is on the advertiser. Hence the reluctance to make generalizations about anything hard to document (such as line quality or operator service). Price is about the only thing they can easily prove. This sort of negative advertising is very common where generic goods are being sold (such as Tylenol, Anacin, etc.), and there isn't much to compare. The FTC has been chasing those giys for years. Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC 20037 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: Dan Flak Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 20 Sep 90 19:18:24 GMT Reply-To: flak@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa In article <12213@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal Schwartz writes: >Well, not quite. The PIC (pilot in command) on a part 91 flight (your >typical small plane operation) is responsible for approving the use of >nearly any onboard electronics *after* determining that such use will >not interfere with any of the avionics in use at the time. I s'pose >that you probably aren't using your navigational radios on the ground >(one would hope!), but if it interferes with communications with >ground control or clearance delivery, the FAA would have a fit. Not quite! The pilot checks navigation radios on the ground. You wouldn't want to have your flight taxi back in because of an erroneous "bad check" of the instruments. I suspect that the "right" type of transmission would even "spoof" an INS which gets no electronic data from the outside world. Also RMI isn't just limited to navigation / communications equipment. Nearly everything on a modern jet transport is electronically reported. There are transducers of every description to measure engine power, airspeed (OK, not the actual airspeed itself, but the Central AIr Data Computer), pitch trim ... (Which, by the way, is one reason why MIL-SPEC coffee pots cost $700. This still doesn't explain the toilet seats). The relatively short wavelengths used by cellular makes it a good candidate for producing RMI. I, as a Pilot in Command would be hesitant to allow its use during any phase of flight. Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:02:37 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug In a message of 18 Sep 90 05:54:28, Mark Wilkins writes: >In particular, one of them said something like "She told me I couldn't >have another part-time job at the same time if I wanted this one. I >was thinking I could recommend you..." [Details of conversation deleted] > The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone >inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way >call? Or did this have to be intentional? >Ignore, for the moment, the possibility of a strange switching error. >Specifically, do many types of production phone equipment have bugs >which could cause this sort of thing? Here's my scenario for how this happened: For simplicity, your friend is person A. Person A is the person with the answering machine. The guy who knew your friend and knew there was a job opening is person B. Person B has three-way calling, maybe doesn't even know it. Regardless, he isn't an expert in its use (as are most people who have it). Person C is person B's friend, who is about to be sold a job. Person B called your friend to find out some details about the job. He reached Person A's answering machine. Dismayed, he clicked the receiver down for a millisecond, and dialed up Person C at the dial tone. What he didn't hear was that when he clicked down the receiver, he merely flashed and got the dit-dit-dit-duuuuh of a three-way calling alternate dial tone. He called person C, connected, spoke for a minute, and ... here's where it gets iffy. Person B must have accidentally either hit the "flash" button or the switchhook for a second, because he clicked over to three-way calling. Before he did this, Person A's answering machine could not hear the conversation between men, but after this second click, all three were linked together. The rest is on cassette. The moral of the story is: Don't ever use "Flash" to hang up, unless you really mean to! You might have three-way calling even if you don't know about it! If you hang up, count to five, and then dial, you should be safe. One other thing: The guy must have dialed his friend really fast. Because, unless your friend's answering machine is really old, it should have timed out when it didn't hear anyone on the line for more than ten seconds or so. (While the guy was in the alternate dial tone dialing up his friend, your friend's answering machine should have heard silence) David Lemson d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM Date: 20 Sep 90 19:01:50 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12300@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > Someone has already made posted an article here discussing Nynex's > CD-ROMs containing telephone directory information for Nynex's > operating companies, New York Telephone and New England Telephone. Having the phone book on CD-ROM is a tremendous idea, but what NYNEX is doing just seems so horribly WRONG. I see this as the non-regulated NYNEX taking advantage of their position and really ripping off the customers of their regulated operating companies NYTel and NET&T. The Feds recently fined NYNEX for other abuses, and MA and NY need to get them for the same violations. The phone company provides a pile of local books free for every phone, and in large companies that get the annual directory delivery by truck load, you probably can't find ANYONE with a recent directory. Why? The building super is no fool. He knows if they get delivered, he will have mountains of old books to cart to the dumpster. Its much simpler to take the NEW pallet load directly to the dumpster. Sure, he saves a few for 'special' people. CD-ROMS could come by mail. Here in Boston, you MUST know whether you need central, north, south or west book for the 411 folks to find anyone, and heaven help you if your lost friend moved one town farther west than the west book covers. Their service and attitude is very poor. The most frustrating thing was knowing that the CD-ROM existed last year when we had a long phone strike and 411 took many minutes to answer. If NET&T offered me a choice of CD-ROM or paper books, I would grab the CD-ROM and run. 411 would seldom if ever get called. Many obvious uses include keeping older directories for reference later to see who lived where 'back then'. Many libraries have very old phone books. CD-ROM would also be good for archiving of this sort, but NYNEX MAKES YOU return old CD-ROMS! Many people have problems reading the fine print in directories, and a simple PC based solution would solve this problem, too. Imagine a payphone with a built in CD-ROM based directory. There are ethical issues of sawing down forests to make phone books when a very inexpensive CD-ROM would be a much better solution. Making the CD-ROM master costs about $1500, and, even in modest quantities (under 100), copies with their silk-screened label, a black and white simple label insert and the plastic snap open jewel case, cost maybe $1.85 each. The raw 'stamp another disc' cost is about 26 cents. If the local telco were to offer you a choice of a CD-ROM, or the normal pile of white pages, would that seem a fair and reasonable option? Maybe a CD-ROM in place of 10 , or 20, sets for a business would make sense. Maybe extras should cost $5.00 or even an outrageous $10. Maybe monthly phone line charges for subscribers taking one CD-ROM rather than twenty sets of books should be LOWER! When I first heard on NYNEX's service it was about $10,000, and that was ONLY for a single workstation and could not be networked! The network version cost even MORE! Something smells rotten. So what is the problem? The old issue of who 'owns' the phone number list, and who can print phone books comes up. The phone industry needs its wings clipped, and though I don't seriously want more government agencies, I would suggest that if the phone companies think they 'own' our phone number list, maybe someone would suggest a government agency that would license you to use phone numbers (you would take your license to which ever dialtone provider you chose...) and this same agency would provide to anyone the master list in some machine readable form for a reasonable processing fee. Of course we don't want this to happen, BUT use the idea as a club to ensure that the telcos don't get too greedy providing lists. If your local telco is trying to get 411 made chargable, try to get the local regulators to only allow it when the telco gives you at least a LATA wide CD-ROM as an optional phone book for the same price they charge you for the current book(s). Nynex claims there is all sorts of proprietary software and database compression involved in that CD-ROM. I don't doubt it. But it won't take long for public domain software to fill the gap, and if regulatory mandates required every LEC to provide users a CD-ROM or paper book free choice, I am sure MANY software houses would gladly provide ALL NECESSARY SOFTWARE at a per copy royalty so low (pennies) that, with even a $1.85 cdrom, the TOTAL cost would be drastically less than the phone books are now. The NYNEX CD-ROM doesn't include Soundex lookup, either, so there is VAST room for improvement by somebody. Of course a combined white/yellow CD-ROM book that also had PC software ON THE CD-ROM that would let you search for a local hardware store that sold metric screws with lefthand threads and automatically dial into each hardware store's computer to check inventory and offered pricing, and even could let you place an electronic order, would need WIDE FREE distribution that the advertisers would gleefully pay for if it was competitively (NOT NYNEX style) priced. Well, next year, maybe... ------------------------------ From: penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) Date: 20 Sep 90 12:16:24 GMT I was over in Russia about a month ago. I think they had the worst phone system. Local calls sounded worse than when I called home!! Go figure... Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Gene Spafford Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages Date: 20 Sep 90 23:23:09 GMT Reply-To: Gene Spafford Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University This has always been a topic of interest to netters. From my archives: From: spaf@gatech.UI@iUCP (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.humor Subject: Re: Boring answering-machine recordings Date: Sun, 20-May-84 19:46:11 EDT Posted: Sun May 20 19:46:11 1984 Well, I try to keep mine from getting too boring. The following recordings seem to have been enjoyed by most of our callers. Fun recordings just take a little imagination and a little time. Anybody else got any good ones they'd like to share? (BTW, Dave is my roommate, and Waldo is our cat.) "Hi, this is Gene. Neither Dave, Waldo, nor I can come to the phone right now. We're being detained by the authorities due to a misunderstanding about some underage sheep. If you'll leave your name, phone number, and the time of your call after the tone, we'll get back to you just as soon as we can post bail. Baaah-baaahh." "Hi, this is Gene. Dave, Waldo and I are currently on Neptune helping to thwart an invasion by the evil lizard men and their sinister companions, the brain moles. If you'll leave your name and number after the tone, we'll get back to you as soon as we return victorious....or as soon as the drugs wear off and reality reasserts itself." "Hi, this is Gene. Dave, Waldo and I aren't exactly here exactly now. We're out testing a new time machine. If you'll leave your name and number after the tone, we'll get back to your as soon as we return. In fact, if the test is successful, we may even call you before we leave!" "Hi, this is Gene. Dave, Waldo and I are on a secret mission with the galactic patrol and we can't answer the phone. Since call forwarding doesn't extend outside the solar system, we've set up this little miracle of modern electronics. Just recite your name, phone number, and planet of origin after the 'beep', and we'll call you back upon our return." At Christmas: "Ho, ho, ho! This is Santa. Dave, Gene, and Waldo can't come to the phone right now because they're out practising pulling my sleigh. It seems those new elves I hired were actually fairies, and all my reindeer are down with AIDS. The boys have agreed to pull my sleigh in return for my not releasing the photos which illustrate why they're not getting anything but coal in their stockings this year. Leave your name and number after the tone, and I'll unhitch them and have them call. Merry Christmas!" And for the next few weeks: "Hi, this is Gene. Dave, Waldo and I can't come to the phone right now, because we're taking a hypnotism lesson. But you don't mind, because you're feeling so relaxed. Your eyelids are feeling heavy and you are getting very drowsy. You're asleep. After you hear the tone, you'll leave your name and telephone number. Then you'll hang up and mail us all your money. Then you'll dress up in a rubber chicken suit and gather twigs to build a nest in your front lawn. After that, we'll either return your call or visit you in the home." Not at all a well duck, (long ago, when this message was written) Off the Wall of Gene Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf (at present, fall, 1990) Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #663 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08044; 22 Sep 90 5:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17605; 22 Sep 90 3:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11869; 22 Sep 90 2:42 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 1:43:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #664 BCC: Message-ID: <9009220143.ab00136@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Sep 90 01:42:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 664 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [Bob Clements] Toll Denial/Control [Carl Moore] AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst) [Carl Moore] T1 Dial Backup Options? [Tom Hampton] Coin Calls From Narita [Dan Hepner] Re: ATM at Retailers (Was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Steve Friedl] Seven-Digit Toll Calls and Rate Information [Joe Konstan] Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [Tom Adams] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Dave Levenson] The Number of Clicks [Carl Moore] Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Douglas Scott Reuben] Awhile Back AT&T Didn't Put it in Writing [Alec] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:14:18 -0400 From: clements@bbn.com I just got a couple of AT&T's Reach Out offers in the mail, for two of my home phone lines (individually billed). This offer is the one that says (paraphrasing) "We aren't sending this offer to just anyone. We're sending it to you because we've analyzed your phone bill and you can save money by buying Reach Out, etc." One of the lines is used only for local calls (mostly data) and has not had more than one or two long distance calls in a year. I'd sure like to know how Reach Out is gonna save me money with a monthly fee and no usage. Unfortunately there's no phone number to call and ask them to put their analysis in writing. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:26:20 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Toll Denial/Control From June 1990 Waynesboro (Va.) phone book (CFW Telephone, where CFW stands for Clifton Forge-Waynesboro): Toll Denial blocks all 1+ and 0+ (note that all local calls in this call guide are 7D). Toll Denial 700/900: blocks 700, 900, or both. Toll Control: Long distance can only be made by dialing personally- assigned access code. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:48:13 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst) Apparently the AT&T card can only be used (outside the USA) to call the USA. It cannot be used for calls within a foreign country (I was in the UK early this year). Also, it cannot be used for calls between foreign countries. [Moderator's Note: You are partly wrong. The AT&T card can be used between two countries other than the USA in the case of Japan. And in fact, I think in the case of Japan to somewhere (other than USA) you don't even use the '1M' international number ... just the regular calling card number and PIN. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tom hampton Subject: T1 Dial Backup Options? Date: 20 Sep 90 21:24:32 GMT Reply-To: tom hampton Organization: Litle & Co. We are looking for a way of backing up our T1 line with dial backup modems. We are running all TCP/IP traffic over the link, which terminates with two Wellfleet bridges. Any ideas? Tom Hampton, Mgr. New Technology, Litle & Co. | POB A218, Hanover, NH 03755 603 643 1832 tom@litle.com tom@litle.uucp {backbone}!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!litle!tom ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 16:55:38 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Coin Calls From Narita From: vic@cs.arizona.edu (Vicraj T. Thomas) >I was in the transit lounge of the Tokyo airport this summer >and wanted to call somebody in the city. I didn't have any yen with >me but I did have my AT&T calling card. [...] Here's a story from Narita (Tokyo International). I changed flights from a direct from Seoul to San Francisco, to a flight with a stopover in Narita, and a different arrival time. I was being met on arrival, and had to phone the modified arrival time home. There were pay phones all around, at least one of which was labeled with an "international" designation. Right above it was the dialing sequence for some 900# to get weather in New York, so you could tell what digits to dial. I _knew_ that calls from Japan were expensive, so I got $10 worth of Yen (1200 then) and prepared to spend it all on a quick call home. After getting to the phone, I started to put one Y100 coin (88c) into the slot, but a Japanese person nearby pointed to the sign suggesting that it took only Y10 to use the phone. Well, I went ahead and put in my Y100 coin in, dialed as suggested, it rang ... normal 45 second conversation ... hangup, all the time waiting for a demand for another Y1000 or so. It never happened. The whole call cost 88c. Now what happened there? Do coin calls from Japan really only cost Y100? Did I somehow rip them off? For all I know, I should have listened to the local and only used Y10. Dan Hepner dhepner@hpda.cup.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Date: 20 Sep 90 14:16:01 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA In article <12318@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs. washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > I've concluded that if the PIN *does* find its way into > Atlantic Richfield's network, it's not likely to do so in such a form > as to become archived anywhere. What legal purpose could be served by > such a database? ARCO does not keep this information at all. The in-store computers have no way of getting the information from the network, and the financial software that does the mini-market accounting does not use it at all either [runs on a 3B15]. The franchisees don't get the $.10 either, ARCO does and probably helps pay for the network. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 17:21:17 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: Seven-Digit Toll Calls and Rate Information Repeatedly in the Digest there are people bemoaning the loss of 1+ dialing for non-local intra-NPA calls. I happen to prqefer 1+ solely for "ten digits follow" and seven digit calling otherwise (with all intra-NPA calls being seven digits allowed) because I tend to program dialers (including the one on my Casio watch) that will move around. Recently, I had an idea that would solve most of the problems: 1. As for dialing patterns, 1+ indicates 10 digits, seven digits indicates within NPA, ten digits can include local calls within NPA (with 1+NPA removed). 2. 099+[10xxx]+[1+NPA]+nxx-xxxx gives automatic rate readback. Minimum suggested level is voice indicating cost for first n minutes and per additional m minutes. Additional features could be provided (especially by long distance carriers) to indicate costs at different hours, under different calling plans, etc. Pay phones would indicate (where appropriate) the coin cost and the default cost (including service charge) for a credit card call. 3. 098+nxx-xxxx is a toll restrictor. It places the call only if it is "local" as defined by the local phone company (free, single message unit, whatever is currently desired by the 1+7D crowd) and returns a non-local number recording otherwise. The big advantages are that nobody has to dial extra digits if they choose not to, and people who want to be protected from toll calls can be. 900 numbers could also be handled through this (easy solution). Operators would not be bogged down with rate questions. The biggest problem is convincing the carriers (and the PUCs) to go for it (and I see all the telcos opposing it since they all have business they stand to lose if people were aware of the cheapest way to place each call. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: Tom Adams - 235-7459 Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! Organization: Southwestern Bell Advanced Technology Laboratory Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 15:25:08 GMT In article <12182@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Budler writes: >>[There is no manufacturer identified, the text calls the phone >>"Voiceprint", the illustration shows the name "Voicephone".] >The *very* first thought I had was "will it work for both my wife and >I?". I can see those 50 reduced to 25 by double recordings. Actually >some mix, she calls different people than I do, but also some of the >same people I do. The Voicephone *does* work well, with a wide variety of speakers. I don't know about ambient noise, though I can bring one into the computer room if someone *really* cares. The Voicephone is sometimes folled by similar names, but does a good job of distinguishing distinctive sounds spoken by different people. uunet!swbatl!adams or adams@swbatl.sbc.com Tom Adams: 314-235-7459: Southwestern Bell Telephone Advanced Technology Lab ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Date: 21 Sep 90 03:51:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) writes: > This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, > received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home. A > rather mercenary discussion between two college students was recorded, > in which they described such matters as exchanging various social > favors in return for finding each other jobs. [What followed was a description of an answering machine's having recorded a conversation between two parties, neither of whom was the owner of the answering machine, but they conversed about the owner.] I think I can explain how the recording came to be made. One of the parties had called the owner of the answering machine, and reached the machine. The caller, having decided not to leave a message, hung up for a moment, and then called the other party. The caller, however, was calling from a line with three-way calling, or from behind a PBX with three-way calling. The hang-up was not long enough to disconnect the call, but resulted in a transfer dialtone. The caller then dialed the other party. At this point, we have a consultation call. The caller is conversing with the second party, while the answering machine is on hold. The caller, perhaps thinking it was taking too long to connect with the called party, hangs up again, picks up to re-dial, but hears the far end answer. At this point, we have a conference call involving the two parties and the answering machine. By now, the machine has finished its announcement, and is recording a message -- the conversation between the other parties. I have come upon this scenario before, while attempting to debug what was originally reported as a faulty voice-mail system. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:59:06 EDT From: cmoore@brl.mil Subject: The Number of Clicks 4 clicks used by 211. 5 clicks used by 212, 311. 6 clicks used by 213, 312, 411. 7 clicks used by 214, 313, 412, 511. 8 clicks used by 215, 314, 413, 512, 611. 9 clicks used by 216, 315, 414, 513, 612, 711. 10 clicks used by 217, 316, 415, 514, 613, 712, 811. 11 clicks used by 218, 317, 416, 515, 614, 713, 812, 911. 12 clicks used by 219, 318, 417, 516, 615, 714, 813, 912. 13 clicks used by 201, 210, 319, 418, 517, 616, 715, 814, 913. 14 clicks used by 202, 301, 310, 419, 518, 617, 716, 815, 914. 15 clicks used by 203, 302, 401, 410, 519, 618, 717, 816, 915. 16 clicks used by 204, 303, 402, 501, 510, 619, 718, 817, 916. 17 clicks used by 205, 304, 403, 502, 601, 610, 719, 818, 917. 18 clicks used by 206, 305, 404, 503, 602, 701, 710, 819, 918. 19 clicks used by 207, 306, 405, 504, 603, 702, 801, 810, 919. 20 clicks used by 208, 307, 406, 505, 604, 703, 802, 901, 910. 21 clicks used by 209, 308, 407, 506, 605, 704, 803, 902. 22 clicks used by 200, 309, 408, 507, 606, 705, 804, 903. 23 clicks used by 300, 409, 508, 607, 706, 805, 904. 24 clicks used by 400, 509, 608, 707, 806, 905. 25 clicks used by 500, 609, 708, 807, 906. 26 clicks used by 600, 709, 808, 907. 27 clicks used by 700, 809, 908. 28 clicks used by 800, 909. 29 clicks used by 900. [Moderator's Note: Thank you Carl, for a particularly delightful item! I hope other readers enjoy it as much as I did. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 20-SEP-1990 23:45:46.53 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine In response to the Moderator's addition to my earlier posting: Pat- I thought it was obvious from my posting, but after reading your comments allow me to make myself clearer: I couldn't care less about blocking Telemarketers or whoever from calling, and am not trying to rationalize any specific message using "8000+ bytes of bandwidth" or whatver. The point is this: The message is mine, as is the machine and the phone line. As long as I don't represent myself as the Telco, I have the right to express myself in whatever manner I choose for whatever reason, and this is beyond the scope of the Telco's inquiry or authority. I am not disputing that there are very limited circumstances when one would forseeably place a SIT tone or whatever on their machines, yet that's the customer's business. The point which I was attempting to make is that this is not within the realm of the Telco's control, and your claim that the Telco has a 'right' to tell customers to alter or eliminate a non-fraudulent Outgoing Message is seemingly baseless and rationally unsound. I briefly checked Westlaw the other day before my initial posting, and found no recent cases to support Pat's contention. (Doubtful many of them would get to Westlaw, granted...) Perhaps this message is short enough so that I won't hear any bandwidth complaints and find out *exactly* what right was granted to the Telcos which allows them to censor what they consider to be offensive messages and the basis by which is applied. Doug (return address removed to conserve even more bandwidth! ;-) ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:24 EDT From: Alec Subject: Awhile Back AT&T Didn't Put it in Writing Long before AT&T's "put it in writing" commercial, they (or a telemarketer representing them) called me, saying that I could save money by subscribing to the Reach Out America plan. I told them I was extremely interested, could they please send me a pamphlet or something in writing? Dead silence... No kidding, this is a true story. (I still use AT&T though...) -*- Alec -*- -_- PCHROMCZ@drunivac.bitnet `---' PCHROMCZ@drunivac.drew.edu ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 00:12:17 EDT From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu Subject: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications) has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in aircraft. I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition (to find out its details), but I cannot find it. Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from aircraft? (I know that you need the permission of the pilot and/or the airline, but that is supposedly not good enough in this case.) [Moderator's Note: It is not so much cellular phones as it is radio equipment in general. All radios -- even those which 'only' receive i.e. scanners, AM/FM broadcast receivers -- also radiate at least a little via what is called the IF, or intermediate frequency. Try holding two little pocket radios back to back, both turned on, and listen to them fight with each other; squealing, etc. Even that tiny amount of RF could adversely affect the aircraft's electronics. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #664 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08069; 22 Sep 90 5:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17605; 22 Sep 90 3:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11869; 22 Sep 90 2:42 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 2:11:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #665 BCC: Message-ID: <9009220211.ab15936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Sep 90 02:11:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 665 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Jim Budler] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Jim Budler] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Rich Zellich] Re: Answering Machine Messages [James Watcher] Re: Call-Me Card [David Tamkin] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin] A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Steve Wolfson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!) Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 07:28:45 GMT In article <12321@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rolf Meier writes: >Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a >"voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics. >Why do you think a data line is a ripoff? A typical data call lasts a >lot longer than voice calls. This means that the Telco has to supply >more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service. This >costs them money. It is only fair that the users of data lines pay >the extra. Uh, this has been argued many, many times. But I have to ask you again why phone companies offer discounts for teen lines, and ask premiums for data lines? Teen calls last longer than typical adult voice calls. I admit they are comparable to interactive data calls. Teen calls last longer than the typical data call I see at work. During the average hour I have four one minute data calls, and one five minute data call. I spent two hours on the phone to a company employee requiring technical assistance from the field. This was a voice call, and it happened to be at home. Many of our voice calls are long, really long. Trying to type on a keyboard 12,000 miles away, or read a crash traceback over the phone can take a long time. Obligatory Humorous Illustrative Example: Person supporting by phone says: "Type cd space slash U S R slash L I B" Three hours later they determine the person on the other end typed: cdspaceslashusrslashlib Back to the subject. I disagree that data calls are by definition longer than voice calls. In fact I believe that data calls are on average *shorter* than voice calls. Why? As I mentioned, I average four one-minute calls per hour, one five-minute call per hour. These are the automated mail and news exchange calls. They are data calls. I average ten interactive (i.e. people) dialins per day. Most are about twenty-minutes, some are a couple hours. On average it breaks down to something like 8x20-minutes, 1x1-hour, 1x3-hour. Let's figure this out: 4 calls per hour * 1 minute * 24 hour = 96 minutes per day 1 calls per hour * 5 minutes * 24 hour = 120 minutes per day 8 calls per day * 20 minutes = 160 minutes per day 1 call per day * 180 minutes = 180 minutes per day 96 times + 24 times + 8 times + 1 time 556 minutes 556 minutes / 129 calls = 4.31 minutes per call Are you really going to try to say that the average voice call is less than this? This is all over voice grade lines. Why do you insist I pay for a data grade line because usage exceeds voice usage? I don't have comparable numbers for our voice usage. But I do believe that excluding only two catagories, wrong numbers and "He's not in, do you want to leave a message", where they don't leave a message, our average voice phone call exceeds five minutes. 'nuff said. I disagree with your argument. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 07:59:31 GMT In article <12322@accuvax.nwu.edu> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >In <12247@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) >writes: >>Like crossing the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant >>with the major undertaking establishment in the city. >>[Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in >>someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral >>arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must >>have really split your pants open with laughter at that one. PAT] >Oh get off it Pat. Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the >telco antics issue is getting old. Just because you didn't think of >it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny >others their own enjoyment of a situation. I am willing to bet that >you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor. Oh get off it Greg. Ethically Pat is absolutely correct. This *is* abuse of trust. And yes, my thesaurus shows "ethically" as synonymous with "carping". Shows our attitude towards ethical behaviour doesn't my thesaurus? "Everybody does it" is *not* an excuse for doing something wrong. If your children want to smoke pot because "All my friends do and I'll look like a (something) if I don't" would you accept that? I hope not. It's a major problem in our society. Everybody: lies on their tax return drives 45 in a 35 zone makes personal calls on their company phone It doesn't make it right. Practical jokes are fun. Yes. Everyone laughs. Yes. Therefore anyone who has ever laughed at a "Practical Joke" is guilty of enjoying abusive humor. That doesn't make it right. And the example given was in extreme poor taste, and an extreme case of abusive humor. And it *is* a good example of abuse of trust. Pat is correct to find it bad. My $0.02 worth. Goodnight, sweet dreams. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: Hui Lin Lim Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 13 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT Organization: HP Singapore > I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking > whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for > the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country, > in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different > ring patterns). Well, here are excerpts from a recent article > describing just such a device. Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it require an ISDN switch etc? Thanks, HuiLin Lim HP Singapore limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 7:58:53 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Tad Cook writes: > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount > package against Sprint's regular rates? Well, the last two times I compared *regular* rates (because I don't do enough long-distance calling for the discount packages to be cost- effective for me), the Sprint rates were cheaper than AT&T's only for the first one (or three) minute(s), after which AT&T's were cheaper. And the difference on that first increment is only a couple of cents. Given my calling patterns - a few calls of multi-minute duration each - it generally works out that AT&T will be cheaper. ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 02:09:22 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages I had a friend that used MacRecorder and SoundEdit to digitize several of PcaBell's "the number you have called..." recordings and then patch them together into an OGM that, while resembling the telco's recordings, could not possibly have been same; this was done with reverb and echo effects. Unfortunately, when most people hear the tri-tones, they fear the worst and hang up; hence the next revision of this message was preceded by him saying "WAIT! don't hang up...", then the tri-tones, etc. thus it is obviously NOT the telco's message, even though it is made up of the same component parts. Could this really be considered copyright infringement, much the same way copying records or CD's or photocopying copyright protected books at the library is considered infringement (as per the statement in most books about unauthorized reproduction, etc) ? I was thinking (as I sometimes do) that a neato-keen OGM would be the tri-tones, followed by "the person you have reached is currently out of service. Please hang up and try again later, or leave a message for their convenience." This way people's OGMs would follow the same general format, making the interface "standard". Perhaps this is silly. My message? Right now it's "we're sorry, we have lost the picture portion of our picture-mission, however we will continue with the sound..." I'm sure somebody out there in netland will be able to guess where I got that little snippet of audio ... (there isn't a newsgroup for that stuff, is there?) James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license) nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu (fast) PO Box 875 Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow) ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Call-Me Card Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 13:35:26 CDT Mark Brader wrote in volume 10, issue 655: | The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family | members. The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who | couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave | them your Calling Card number. The subtext I gather is this: the Call-Me Card (I've also heard it named a "Call Home Card" and simply a "restricted calling card") was implemented for businesses to issue to employees who couldn't be trusted not to make personal calls on a company telephone credit card; with the restricted card, the employee could dial only to the designated receiving number. With the software in place, there was no overhead other than the advertising to encourage its use for additional calls home by college students and the like and thus additional IEC or LEC revenue. 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Date: 21 Sep 90 11:32:45 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon On Sep 21 at 0:11, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > This is BALONEY! I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access > from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission > quality. In the Seattle area this may be true. Sprint was the first to provide any decent sounding transmission to the Pacific Northwest. I remember specifically using it to call friends that live in Tacoma. From here and perhaps other parts of the country, that is not true. While they are very close, AT&T has the quality nod. > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package > against Sprint's regular rates? Sorry, but my latest rate comparisons (I do this for a living) show AT&T to be somewhat cheaper for casual calling inter-LATA but intra-state. The most glaring example is a call from San Francisco to LA. Night rate: AT&T, $0.14 first minute, $0.11 each additional. Sprint, $0.14 each minute, no reduction for additional minutes. The cheapest intra-state rates for dialup are AT&T's 800 service which is half that of Sprint for the same setup. I don't mean to be argumentative, but those ARE the quotes. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 14:13:06 CDT Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from O> Michigan. They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I O> found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that O> he was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.). O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested O> the switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you ?" "No." O> Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service. Anyway, O> after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better O> now. I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise. I'm O> waiting to see. ;-) Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to place a long-distance call from Tom's line, so he gave MCI both phone numbers with explicit instructions that his was to get primary service but Tom's was to get secondary service. However, once Tom's number gets listed on an account where at least one number has 1+ service, MCI's conveniently poor customer service software thinks all numbers whose MCI accesses are on that account should have MCI as primary carrier. That was one of the explanations given me about their slamming my parents and attempting to slam me; however, Tom Ohmer's apartment-mate really *did* want MCI 1+ on his own line. Neither my parents nor I wanted MCI as primary carrier, but some overeager MCI rep decided to score points by coding my account that way. Result: points possibly scored by rep with bosses, many points lost by MCI with me. When Telecom*USA loses its autonomy and I get MCI service instead, they'll lose me as a 1+ customer. J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes. After some J> wrangling, and about a year or so, they finally credited my local J> phone co. account (U.S. West) with the change order service fees. J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome J> to MCI's 1+ service. Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor, J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING? Yes, in fact I did. J> So I dialed the 700-555-4141 number to see who my long distance J> carrier really was, and lo-and-behold, it said MCI. J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI J> again, without my permission. Can you tell that I'm annoyed? Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents, NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain- tances: as I said before, BOC's believe a comrade-in-arms knows what's best for the customer and accept a slammer's word, but independent telqi can grasp the concept that customers have some intelligence of their own and can make their own decisions. It's enough to make me pity the Illinois Bell customers I see out my window. 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: Steve Wolfson Subject: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child Date: 19 Sep 90 13:26:59 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL They look, like Motorola Portable Phones, but on close examination they have the AT&T Logo. But they are not Cellular Phones, for only $12.99 the little yuppie in your house can have fun playing Stock Broker, Take-Over Artist, or even CEO. with his or her own AT&T cellular phone style walkie-talkie. Steve Wolfson -- Motorola Cellular, Arlington Heights, IL -- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #665 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26820; 23 Sep 90 1:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16657; 22 Sep 90 23:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03225; 22 Sep 90 22:53 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 22:07:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #666 BCC: Message-ID: <9009222207.ab01247@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Sep 90 22:06:58 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 666 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CLASSPLUS Service [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Octothorpes [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Norman R. Tiedemann] Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person [W. Randolph Franklin] Re: Bell Canada Restricts 976 [Pete Smith] Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Dave Levenson] Re: Sleazy 900 Numbers [Dave Levenson] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Jeff Sicherman] Re: MCI Slams Me Again [John Nagle] MCI Wins One by Default [Bruce E. Howells] What is This World Coming To? [Lou Judice] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-SEP-1990 01:09:38.63 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: CLASSPLUS Service Hi- I saw that William Degnan in his post on new "CLASSPLUS" services mentioned that one of these new services would allow customers with Call-Waiting to get a display of a third party calling via Call-Waiting. This is indeed interesting, but a bit troublesome. I thought that the data for Caller*ID was sent between the first and second rings, ie, before the phone is picked up. How is it possible then to send the Caller*ID signal while a call is allready in progress? I am presently working on a few devices which utilize Caller*ID, so it would be a real pain if Call-Waiting type Caller*ID is not compatible with the "standard" type of Caller*ID (ie, the kind Bellcore describes in their literature.) Do they verebally tell you the calling number after the Call-Waiting beep, as in: (or CLICK CLICK for older machines) You have a call from 555-1212. Flash once to answer." Nah ... would take too long ... oh well, sounds interesting to me, nevertheless. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Octothorpes Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 06:03:58 GMT v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Dave Archer) writes: >I've got a pulse/tone switchable phone that uses * for mute and # for >redial. It does mute/redial regardless of whether you're in pulse or >tone mode, which of course means, you can't send a * or # in tone. Here in Australia, Telecom introduced pulse only push button phones in about 1970. Some years later they became tone/pulse switchable with 9 memories (*1 thru *9) and last number redial (#) in both pulse & tone mode. To get a * or # in tone mode you had to push ** or ##. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 14:38:50 EDT From: Norman R Tiedemann Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) writes: >This individual received an extremely odd call on her answering >machine at home. At first, she just assumed this was crosstalk of >some particularly nasty kind, although the voices were much clearer >than when crosstalk is a problem. >However, the next day a person she'd been interviewing for a job came in. >Instantly, everything clicked. He had been the one whose conversation was >recorded on the phone. Apparently he had a sophistcated auto-dial speaker >phone, either with more than one line or with three-way callbing. >The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone >inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a >three-way call? Or did this have to be intentional? This is not that odd, I have gotten this on my machine a couple of times and I now know exactly what causes it here. The person who was recorded just has to have three way calling on his line and it is a very easy thing to do completely ACCIDENTALLY! He calls you, (to schedule the appointment or whatever), gets your machine and decides he doesn't want to leave a message. He taps the switch hook, which instead of hanging up, gives him the second line, the CO on your end doesn't even detect the disconnect and keeps your machine connected (and recording). He now has a threeway setup between your machine, himself and the next person he called. Everything is recorded and unless your machine has a beep or time limit or something on it, he never knows. (I guess he would really get confused if he tried to three way again.) So it is fairly easy for an inexperienced "phone user" to do this and not have a clue about what is going on. Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs IH 2G-419 att!ihlpy!normt 2000 Naperville Rd. normt@ihlpy.att.com Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 21 Sep 90 19:43:27 GMT In article <12382@accuvax.nwu.edu> Norman Soley writes: >Once upon a time someone told me that the reason a data line costs >more was because a voice call used less bandwidth when it was >multiplexed with other calls on a trunk than a data call did. At least in the past on transatlantic lines, a form of time division multiplexing was used where you had a line only when talking. The result was that 1/20 second of so was clipped of the start of every phrase while the system was allocating you a new circuit. Therefore they had to make the first tone longer when transmitting a number. Is this still used, and where? Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 90 09:35:40 GMT From: wisdom@cs.uwindsor.ca Subject: Re: Bell Canada Restricts 976 Organization: School of Computer Science, Univ. of Windsor, Ontario, Canada In article <12292@accuvax.nwu.edu>, msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill reads in part: > # Effective August 24, 1990 Bell Canada customers will be able > # to reach only Bell 976 Service programs within their area code. > # Long distance calls to Bell 976 Service programs elsewhere > # within Bell Canada territory -- for example, Ottawa to Montreal > # -- will automatically be blocked. > # ... Bell filed the proposal to block long distance calls to 976 > # Service programs as a result of customer complaints over unauth- > # orized calls. This restriction is meant to protect them from > # unexpected long distance charge for 976 Service. Right. The unmentioned reason is that BC's customers don't make any money from calls out of your Area Code ... such calls are only charged the LD rates, NOT the maximum $3 per call for a maximum 4 minute recorded msg. With service providers losing out on, for instance, calls to their 416 numbers by 519 dialers, instead of to the 519 numbers, BC had to appease their REAL customers somehow. Thus the "restriction". In almost all cases, the "unexpected long distance charge" works out to about half the cost of an "unexpected local 976 charge". Service providers for Ontario 976 numbers are required to rent a minimum of 30 phone lines, with equipment in specific locations (closer to certain CO's, the cheaper the line rentals). I can understand why they want to make as much money as they can; but BC's "meant to protect" smoke is just annoying. Ah well, at least we don't have to worry about 900 numbers; the only ones we have access to here are the automated voting lines; the most popular one is used on the national Movie Channel to pick a new release to be shown early. Pete Smith ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines Date: 22 Sep 90 11:45:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12375@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is > data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco > more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour > converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the > authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of > the position fails as well. John is quite correct. Using today's technology, and using timed billing, data calls cost the telco what voice calls do, and they produce the same revenue that voice calls do. Extra charges for data calling are not justified. This may not always be true, however. Future trends go toward allocating only the bandwidth required to every connection. Rather than assign 64kbit/second of bandwidth to every conversation, whether or not it needs it, the future network will only assign the bandwidth actually required by the message channel being carried. Speech compression and coding technology has advanced a long way since the first digital telephony standards were written. An example of this trend is the use, in the coming digital cellular telephony networks, of speech carried at 8 or 16 kbit/second with sophisticated digital signal processing being used to remove virtually all redundancy from the channel. It's like running batched netnews feeds through compress(1). These channels don't work with wideband data. The amound of information is greater, and the amount of compression that can be realized is less. The minimum required bandwidth is greater. The cost is higher. At some point, we should expect the price to be higher. There is technology under development that will characterize individual calls as voice or data. Data calls will be further characterized by the amount of compression possible (i.e. the minimum required bandwidth). I predict that at some point, we'll not only find timed local billing, but bandwidth-dependent timed billing. It will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems. The high-speed links will take less time, but the price per minute will be higher, to reflect the increased bandwidth requirements. What I don't know is how long it will be before such things become common. I do know that the call-characterization technology is under development for the RBOCs today. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Sleazy 900 Numbers Date: 22 Sep 90 11:29:22 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12371@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) writes: [A description of yet another sleazy 900 number practice.] >Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup. I didn't realize that 900 number sleaze was the result of divestiture! Could somebody please explain this one? There are many effects of divestuture, some are good, and some are bad. There are also many changes in telecommunications technology and in its application. Some are good; some (like 900 sleaze, IMHO) are bad. I don't believe, however, that retention of AT&T's monopoly status would have prevented this sort of application of their services by their customers. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:48:24 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor > I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking > whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for > the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country, > in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different > ring patterns). Well, here are excerpts from a recent article > describing just such a device. I called my LEC (Pactel) and was informed by the representative that they do not provide this service, at least in this area (Anaheim, Orange County, California). She did say that GTE did support it, however. I would appreciate any information to the contrary, i.e. how to educate the reps to exactly what I'm talking about. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: MCI Slams Me Again Date: 22 Sep 90 06:05:57 GMT How about not paying MCI's bill? John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 21:12:21 -0400 From: "Bruce E. Howells" Subject: MCI Wins One by Default About two months ago, I wrote an article for TELECOM Digest outlining my "slamming" my (now old) residential service, and how a smiling MCI rep promised me that the billing would end immediately, that I'd be credited immediately for that month's billing on MCI, and would I please accept their apology. Well, since then: I recieved my September NJ Bell bill. Not only wasn't the promised refund there, but ANOTHER month's billing. Immmediate call to the person at MCI who so kindly fixed this a month ago. Call 1 - Sorry, but she's not working at the moment. May I take your name and have her return your call? Call 2 - same. Call 3 - "I've gotten this story twice now, when is she working?" Given schedule. Call 4 during appropriate time - Sorry, she's on another call, may I put you on hold? Certainly. 10 minutes later, dialtone. Call 5 - same Call 6 - I'm sorry you've gone through all this Mr. Howells, I'll leave a message for her and her supervisor to call tomorrow. Call 7 - 9 - same. Well, MCI, you've won one by default. To keep NJ Bell happy, I've paid your bill (MCI billed me via NJB), and since I've now moved to Boston, and am being kept quite busy by my studies here, I'm not going to pursue this any further. However, you might want to consider the public relations damage, at least locally - this story has travelled across USENet, as well as throughout the group of people here in Boston and New Jersey whom I know ... Maybe it's not a large customer-base, but there are a few people out there quite thoroughly polarized against MCI, and from what I understand, I'm not the only person to be "slammed" in this manner ... It's not really that big a thing, when you come down to it - but I'll never do business with you again, nor will any phone line I have contact with. My roommate was quite interested to hear why I so strenously did not want MCI as our Dial-1 carrier. Oh, by the way - I notice that you've somehow managed to be assigned to my new residence number here as the Dial-1 carrier, even after all the service requests had "NO DIAL-1, BY SUBSCRIBER REQUEST" on them. Bruce Howells, beh@bu-pub.bu.edu | engnbsc@buacca (BITNet) ------------------------------ From: Lou Judice Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 05:42:33 PDT Subject: What Is This World Coming To? I don't understand several of the recent postings in Telecom ... What is the point of putting bizzare messages on your answering machine to mislead some hapless telemarketing representative, when as Patrick states, A POLITE NO THANK YOU WILL DO! And exactly why would you want to even RISK interference with air traffic communications by using your cellular phone while taxiing to the gate on an airliner? Remember, an accident here may result in severe damage to your portable cellular phone (not to mention you). What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to strangers, and/or can't wait two minutes to get to make a darned telephone call? Sorry, I just don't get it! ljj [Moderator's Note: Sometimes, Lou, neither do I. And there you have issue 666 of the Digest. I wonder if the Devil made me do it. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #666 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00908; 23 Sep 90 13:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17265; 23 Sep 90 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23679; 23 Sep 90 0:58 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 0:21:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #667 BCC: Message-ID: <9009230021.ab28647@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Sep 90 00:20:59 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 667 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Bill Cerny] Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More [Jeff Carroll] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [James Watcher] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Kevin Mitchell] Re: POETS Sets [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Peter da Silva] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Bob Yasi] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Mark Kerr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 15:54:43 GMT In article <12026@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Speed writes: >On a similar note, our local grocery chain has >installed pseudo ATM's for banking from the checkout line. Perhaps I'm >paranoid, but I don't see any advantage (to *me*) in giving the >merchant my bank number and PIN. Am I being silly ? You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees the light of day. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: Toto uucp Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions Date: 21 Sep 90 04:14:30 GMT In article <12315@accuvax.nwu.edu> ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: >If both sides went over satellite, that would mean a half-second of >extra delay from when one person stopped talking... Would any reader care to confirm or deny the rumor I heard that in the late 1970's AT&T used "satellite avoidance codes" for its inbound WATS (now called "800 Service") customers receiving data calls? As I recall, certain 800-NNX codes were guaranteed a terrestial routing; e.g., 800-223 (NYC Broadway 24) was an avoidance code, but its sister, 800-221, might catch a satellite hop on a transcontinental call. Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More Date: 21 Sep 90 02:10:16 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12208@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >(You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?) NO ONE expects the SPANISH INQUISITION !!!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist. Aren't there any other Monty Python fans out there?) >As for Mr. Higdon being "vindicated" ... by GTE switch local telcos? >My guess is that John would rather vindicate the Bay Area *from* GTE >switches. The point I was trying to make is that there *are* some places in 415 where the S/N gets pretty bad between the local CO and Sprint. I can imagine a variety of reasons for this, some of which would be the local telco's fault rather than Sprint's. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 02:27:42 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Some years ago I heard of an automatic call fowarding device (this was before call forwarding was offered as an option by the telcos; it was, in fact, pre-divestiture) that worked like this: you had two lines; the first one rings (your "real" number); device dials out on the second line; then conferences the lines together. Sure, you would have to have two lines, but if you already have an extra one for the dial-out modem, this wouldn't be a problem. Such a device would be simpler and more straightforward, and with the addition of some intelligence (say, a 6502? :-) could be reprogrammed remotely, have pin numbers, etc, as well as other interesting features, such as the ability to forward a number only during certain hours, otherwise leaving it unanswered or diverting it to an answering machine. It could forward to different numbers based on the time of day, or the day of the week. It could keep a log of when calls were forwarded, where, and for how long. If it knew how much it cost, it could keep tabs on that. If the volume of calls was not too terribly high, it could even forward both directions, i.e. calls on line A get forwarded to number C through line B, while calls to line B get forwarded to number D through line A. Better yet: have three-way calling on the outgoing line that could then be used remotely; even better still, have TWO outgoing lines with three-way calling that could be conferenced together WITH the incoming line, making it possible to set up small conferences by dialing in. Of course, the more complicated, the more engineering headaches and programming nightmares, but such a thing is definitely feasible, and probably not very expensive. I could probably even design the controller and write the software! Unfortunately, I'm just not an analog person. James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license) nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu (fast) PO Box 875 Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow) ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Date: 22 Sep 90 05:40:44 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago We have had similar problems with a voice mail system we were evaluating here at Datalogics. We have over 100 phones on Centrex, with some third party call direction equipment for the receptionist, and a setup that connects you to the paging loudspeakers if you dial 8 from any phone. People would try to make intraoffice calls. After four rings, they would figure the person wasn't at his desk, so they'd flash the switchhook, dial 8, and announce "XYZ please call 3NNN" or somesuch. Immediately afterward, the voicemail system would ask the entire company if they would want to leave a message via the loudspeakers. You see, the "dial 8" is just another extension, and the switchhook flash had the effect of transferring the voicemail system to the paging extension. When the paging system "answered," the voicemail would announce. After about a month of listening to this, we decided against the voicemail system. It turns out that people would rather leave computer mail instead. Now, we only have to smirk at the occasional accidental connection of the operator to the paging system. Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: POETS Sets Tad writes : >This is an electronic key system called the Walker Poet. Didn't ANYBODY recognize the product marketing failure a "clever" name like POETS put in the mind of every office worker, the expectation it only worked on Friday: "P... On Everything; Tomorrow's Saturday!" Oh, how much I heard that and it burned into the buyers' minds. Small wonder Walker didn't get rich on that one! ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:13:24 GMT In article <12141@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Reading it doesn't do it justice. You have to hear it. Maybe someday > I can arrange to put it on for a weekend, just so Digest readers can > call and hear it! Digitize it and send it in to Pat. I'm sure he'd LOVE to ship binaries with TELECOM Digest. Actually, now that I think of it, an FTP site for answering-machine messages might not be a bad idea. They're certainly more *useful* than the dirty pictures group. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:35:42 GMT In article <12412@accuvax.nwu.edu> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: >This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications) >has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in >aircraft. I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition >(to find out its details), but I cannot find it. It is certainly too recent to have found itself printed in CFR47 (the FCC rules and regulations). In any event, the cabin crew announcement these days is exceedingly explicit in disallowing operation of ANY radio equipment (transmitters or receivers) at any time. US Air also requested that we turn off laptop computers and video games during takeoff and landing. All of the above is, I believe, related to the FARs proscribing interference to navigational equipment. The airborne cellular (specifically) prohibition has be discussed here before, and relates to cell overloading. Maybe someone can look it up in the cellular rules. I wouldn't be surprised to find the laptop prohibition on takeoff and landing to be an attempt to prevent injury from flying objects in the event of an accident. Sometimes there may be MORE THAN ONE reason for a rule. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:46:47 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine I'm not a lawyer or a regulatory expert, but it seems to me that requesting and being granted telephone service creates at least an implied contract between the subscriber and the supplier which includes an obligation to follow all regulations and rules whose purpose is to maintain the reliability and efficiency of the phone network and which do not unreasonably interfere with the customers use of it. It seems to me that aping signalling tones could, under some circumstances interfere with its operation, if only by confusing humans whose job it is to troubleshoot and repair. And their use seems like mostly a game to those using them, not a necessary use. Like the highway system or any other shared media or conveyance, the phone system works because there are limits on its use to maximize its benefits for all (even the stockholders), not merely for those who want to maximize their own satisfaction or amusement. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Date: 21 Sep 90 19:50:36 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA I was pretty surprised that our Moderator posted the so-called joke about crossing the lines of the meat packing plant with the funeral home -- unless the purpose was to let people that these things actually DO occur and to get some comments. Well, here are my comments. Perhaps the perpetrators have not yet experienced much grief at the death of a loved one, or have not comforted a loved one going through such grief themselves. Well, I hope you do, and soon, and that someone does something awful to make it worse and that you think of this when it happens. Then laugh. Ha Ha Ha. These jerks have my utter condemnation -- and I haven't even addressed the privacy issue! Bob Yazz [Moderator's Note: You saw the messages because I try to avoid censoring on the basis of content, provided there is at least some telecom relationship in the message. Sometimes when there are *so many* replies all saying the same thing I have to cut out a few, but I avoid censoring merely because I don't like the content. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:47:46 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" I wonder how some of the apologists for the shenanigans being passed off as inside humor would react if the Postal Service did the following to their mail: - randomly opened it and made copies to pass around the office and to other parties - intentionally routed it to the wrong party occasionally I don't see any difference between these and the activities of the insiders, other than the media and the employer, and that doesn't change the ethics of the situation. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 08:16:24 EDT From: Mark Kerr Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" In-Reply-To: message from ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu >Oh get off it Pat, Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the >telco antics issue is getting old. Just because you didn't think of >it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny >others their own enjoyment of a situation. I am willing to bet that >you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor. That's probably true ... someone should ask Pat about the things he used to do with some BBS software that a branch of the Chicago Public Library used to run. Something about "back doors". I'm sure none of us are perfect. Heck, I still remember getting my wrists slapped in college over using the state tie line to call friends at other campuses. Hey, the tie line was programmed and available from my dorm phone! Mark Kerr UUCP: ....!crash!pro-charlotte!markke ARPA: crash!pro-charlotte!markke@nosc.mil INET: markke@pro-charlotte.cts.com [Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library used to run a BBS for book and movie reviews, plus social issues discussion. This was in the period 1981-83. It ran on an Apple II computer donated by Friends of the Chicago Public Library. It originally used the ABBS program. Three of us donated money to buy the People's Message System (PMS) software which had recently been written by Bill Blue. The same three of us installed it. I was the volunteer Sysop for several months in 1982-83, and maintained the board from home most of the time. The library staff was supposed to turn on the machine on at 9 PM each night when the library closed, and turned it off in the morning. Library patrons used the computer and a variety of software during the day. I never knew what I would find from one night to the next or if in fact they would remember to turn on the BBS before closing for the night. The only trap door I knew of in the PMS software was the one the author put there and documented in the manual: a certain command permitted the Sysop or super-user to exit to DOS for maintainence work on the board, followed by a PR#6 to bring it back up again, although frankly there were so many people getting involved there what you say about additional trap doors -- if there were any -- doesn't surprise me. I finally resigned in May, 1983 when my own BBS was about to go on line. There were various differences of opinion between the supervising librarian and myself about how the library BBS should and should not be operating. One such difference centered on the lack of security on the BBS. In the early eighties, only a few of us were demanding verifiable user information before issuing passwords. Most BBS', including the library, ran wide open in those days. The attitude of the supervising librarian was that 'it had to be open to all users since it (the library) was a public, tax-supported institution.' Needless to say, the message base was a mess much of the time and apparently the software got that way also. It made better sense to spend my energy on my own board instead, although I still do volunteer work for the Chicago Public Library, as I have since 1981. Now I produce programs for the visually handicapped in the library's Radio Information Service which are broadcast over closed-circuit SCA (Subscriber Carrier Access) radios throughout northern Illinois. If you are interested, our signal travels with WBEZ, the Chicago Board of Education radio station. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #667 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00922; 23 Sep 90 13:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17265; 23 Sep 90 2:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad23679; 23 Sep 90 0:58 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 0:51:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #668 BCC: Message-ID: <9009230051.ac11564@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Sep 90 00:51:28 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 668 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Payphone Message Service Trial Ending [David Leibold] Teleconferencing Symposium in Toronto [David Leibold] COCOTery [John Higdon] Multiple "Zones" in One Cell Service Area [Douglas Scott Reuben] Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [Dave Levenson] False Telco Trouble Reports [Dave Levenson] Sprint Wars (was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!) [Todd Inch] Crosstalk in Nontwisted Cable [Alec] Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: Payphone message service trial ending Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:09:51 EDT From the Bell (Canada) News, it seems that the Payphone Messenger trial that has been going on in Ottawa is something of a success. This is the service for payphones that allows one to leave a voice message should a called number be busy or unanswered. If the caller wants to leave a message, the '#' button is pressed and the caller leave a message. The called number will ring every fifteen minutes until answered or until two hours have passed. Leaving a message costs the coin deposit (25c); the caller can also hang up on the busy or no-answer and get the deposit back. The Ottawa trial will end on 1st October, and the service will stop, at least until the service is offered commercially next year, as a feature of the new Millenium payphones. The Marketing and Development groups of Bell Canada involved in the trial won an award for the project. 89% of Payphone Messenger users who tried the service were satisfied with it. On the receiving end, three-quarters of those receiving a payphone message considered it a "major improvement" in payphone service. (The figures were based on those interviewed with respect to the message service). ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Teleconferencing Symposium in Toronto Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:16:45 EDT Telecom Canada presents a Teleconferencing Symposium 15-16 October 1990, Downtown Holiday Inn, Chestnut St, Toronto Highlights: * Keynote speaker F.G. "Buck" Rodgers, author of "The IBM Way" * Professor Jerry White, author of "Intrapreneuring, The Secrets of Corporate Success in Canada" * Dr. Robert Johansen, President of the Institute for the Future Costs: 2 days, meals + workshops incl - $495 1 day, meals + workshops incl - $325 trade show postion only - two days - $25 To register, send cheque or money order (payable to the 1990 Teleconferencing Symposium) to Debbie Smith, Corporate Business Development, Rm 740, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa Canada. More info: Cathy Thompson (613) 781.1394 ------------------------------ Subject: COCOTery Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 20 Sep 90 23:22:48 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation. Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow 10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access different carriers. So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this arena. I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act. So what is to be done about these things? Personally, I replaced my GE Mini cellular phone with a Motorola flip phone so that I could always carry it with me. I'd rather pay a few cents more to a cellular provider than to COCOT scum. The principle of COCOTs has got to be near the top of the list of "bad things" to come out of divestiture. To those of you who have groused about the impracticality of making international calls from payphones, I have a comment: It will only get worse. To the degree that COCOTs take over and displace Utility payphones, casual public use of this country's telephone network will disappear. Not only is it impractical to call Fiji, it is also impossible to call across town to retrieve voice mail messages. Instead of becoming more useful, the public telephone has become practically useLESS. COCOTs have certainly played a part in the roaring success of cellular communications. You don't suppose... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 21-SEP-1990 04:20:38.88 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Multiple "Zones" in One Cell Service Area Hi- I was going over my Roam charges for Cell One/San Francisco, and noticed that not only was I billed the $2 daily charge for the SF area, but they also billed me $2 for going to Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa, both of which are "part" of the Cell One/SF system. When I first called Cell One/SF in June, I asked "What is the extent of your coverage area?", and after that, "Could you please tell me your system ID code so that I can set it in my phone so the "ROAM" light will come on when I leave you area..." (and not have to pay Roam charges for temporarily calling from another system)? They (VERY politely, with NO hesitation!) told me "Oh, sure, it's 00041, and as long as you don't see the ROAM light come on, you'll definitely be in our area...". Now when I was down in Santa Cruz, or up in Petaluma (in the Santa Rosa "Zone"), my "ROAM" light didn't show up, yet Cell One/SF insists that both the Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa systems have different System ID numbers. I was told Santa Cruz was something like 30041 and Santa Rosa was 50041. (Can't recall exactly.) If this is the case, why didn't my phone show ROAM while I was in those areas? Is the first digit (ie, the 3 or 5 in this case) insignificant, ie, do cell phones ignore it for purposes of comparison with the "home" Sys. ID code in the phone? A friend of mine who has Cell One/SF as her "home" system says that when she goes down to Santa Cruz her "ROAM" light doesn't go on, and she isn't billed anything extra or at higher airtime rates. So is this just some way to rip-off Roamers unsuspectingly? (Which in my experience with Cell One would be quite atypical). I try to make every effort not to incur lots of daily charges, including programming my phone so I can tell when I'm in a new system, but if I can't tell when I am "roaming" by the "ROAM" indicator, how can I tell?? The amount in question was only $18, so it's more the principle of the thing that concerns me. Anyone else notice this? (I am on GTE so this is the first time I noticed this myself...) Just wondering. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? Date: 21 Sep 90 15:06:36 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks. His number was 267-1234 (actual number changed to protect...). He didn't want a ring-no-answer situation for two weeks, and didn't happen to have an answering machine at the time. He used call- forwarding. He forwarded his calls to 263-1234 (note the similarity to his own number) in nearby Boonton, NJ. That number was not in service at the time. Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have dialed, 263-1234, is not in service." This probably gave many callers the impression that they had mis-dialed the third digit. Someone called NJ Bell repair service. They investigated, and then canceled call-forwarding on my friend's line. When he returned home and found that callers were reaching ring-no-answer, he complained to NJ Bell. In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again! They never claimed that he was not within his rights in forwarding his calls to a non-working number. He has since forwarded his calls to permanently-busy test numbers on such occasions. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: False Telco Trouble Reports Date: 21 Sep 90 15:15:05 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Here at Westmark, the number on the second line in the hunt-group that serves our modem pool was assigned to us about three months after its former subscriber had requested a number-change to unlisted. While I was installing the modems, it began to ring. I answered from the butt set, and explained to the caller that the Schwartz family no longer had that number. This happened several times during the first hour. I called NJ Bell and advised them that the number they had just assigned was perhaps not yet "ripe for reassignment" and asked them for another. Because it is the second line in a hunt group, we don't care what its number is, and nobody else needs to know. NJ Bell replied that they'd charge us $50 for a number-change. I replied that in that case, I'd keep the number and let them deal with the resulting confusion. Repair service has called four times in the past year, apparently when a caller complained to them that they were trying to call Mr. Schwartz and got a loud tone (modem answer tone) on the line. On each occasion, I explained to the repair agent that the line had been re-assigned, no-longer belongs to anybody named Schwartz, and is now part of a group of data lines. I'm still willing to let them change the number if they're willing to do it gratis, but they aren't. I haven't heard from repair service lately, so perhaps the callers have finally learned. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!) Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 21:11:06 GMT In article <12176@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: >C'mon, folks. Enough whining about Sprint "putting it in writing". I don't think so. I wish I HAD it in writing before I did switch to Sprint, it might have saved a lot of time and some money. Both on their TV ads and on the phone to both myself and my wife, their sales staff promised that I would save money switching to Sprint. LIE!!! I found out about their lie when AT&T "slammed" me after my wife called for information. I was infuriated that I had been slammed and demanded GTE change me back and refund the difference I would have saved if I had been on Sprint, as was my desire. The nice service rep at GTE called back and told me I would have paid $8.50 MORE if I had Sprint for the (typical, for me) calls on my bill. She called each carrier and got their costs for those calls and compared them for me. That worked out to about 10% of that bill. Yes, all my LD calls are normally intRA-state, inter-LATA (206 to 509) but Sprint never EVER mentioned intER-state call savings, or intRA-state exceptions, or "average calling patterns" or anything like that. >10 cents per minute anywhere in US. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is a continuation of the BIG LIE. It means "anywhere except within your own state." But, who would ever dial long distance inside their own state? (sarcastic smiley here) And you want to talk about Customer Service? Took six calls, with LOTS of auto-attendant menus and "on-hold" time to get Sprint to credit me for the difference between them and AT&T and the $12 dial-1 LD changeover fee. While I'm ranting, let's talk about those 100% digital calls. Yes, CALLS is what they've told me, not NETWORK. Lie #2, especially if you're in the west half of the United States. How many miles of analog lines does your call travel through to get to their digital network? I don't know, maybe it does help if you're calling cross-country, but I just can't get past the notion of your quality is only as good as the weakest link. Is this as opposed to a satellite-based network? Maybe that is the weakest link for the other guys. Well, I haven't thrown out the 800-service literature from Sprint yet, and I did give the lady an hour of my time to discuss the company's LD plans, so I'm not totally predjudice about Sprint, they just don't help me at home and I don't like sales jer ... uh, people, lying to me. Can anyone comment on the modem-connection quality via Sprint from/to the Seattle area? Sounds controversional in central CA, anyway. I also don't like being slammed, but that did show me true costs, and they (AT&T) paid for the changeover themselves. I also give them a little leeway since my wife did said she was interested, but didn't explicitly ask for or authorize the switchover. Interesting note here, GTE swears the LD carrier cannot authorize a changeover (maybe local policy?), that the subscriber has to call it in himself, but obviously it can happen here. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:18 EDT From: Alec Subject: Crosstalk in Nontwisted Cable For some reason, my house was wired with six pair nontwisted cable. When I got a second line and hooked it up to a second pair, the crosstalk was so bad as to make both lines unuseable. At the time I had one of those cheap phones that when the ringer is turned on and you pulse dial on that line it chirps. Well, from that phone (with it on hook!) you could listen to this side of the conversation on the *OTHER* line! I ended up running quad (I had some) separately for the second line. -*- Alec -*- PCHROMCZ@drunivac.bitnet PCHROMCZ@drunivac.drew.edu ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface Date: 21 Sep 90 18:19:59 GMT I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of a key telephone system and a two-way radio system. The operator of the device pushes the line button on the key telephone associated with this device, and audio from the radio system is patched into the telephone. The operator can then press a footswitch to key the push-to-talk circuit of the radio, and talk over the radio using an operator's headset that is part of the telephone. I thought of using a ringdown circuit between a line position on the key system and one of those simplex autopatches, but there must be a simpler solution that does not require the ringing voltage from the ringdown circuit, and provides it's own battery feed to the phone system. I also would not need the sampling that the simplex patch provides which allows a mobile unit to access the phone system. This is a very simple patch that would be under control of the operator. Is there a stand-alone unit that would do this? I know that Plant Equipment has a card (the 3134 KTU Radio Access) that does this, but only as part of their whole key system. If anyone has some thoughts on this and cannot reach me via email, you can call me from 7:40am to 3:50pm Pacific Time weekdays at 800-824-9719 or 206-881-7000, and ask for PAUL COOK. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #668 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07953; 23 Sep 90 20:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26316; 23 Sep 90 19:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10863; 23 Sep 90 18:07 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:39:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #669 BCC: Message-ID: <9009231739.ab30593@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:39:04 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 669 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI as Slamming King [Robert Michael Gutierrez] Re: What Is This World Coming To? [John Higdon] Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [John Higdon] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Rich Sims] Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Steven King] Stealing ATM PINS [Isaac Rabinovitch] The Phone Book [David Leibold] Finding Your Own Phone Number [Patrick Tufts] References Wanted on Toll Fraud [David Appell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 05:54:01 GMT Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: |> Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: |> O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from |> O> Michigan. They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI. I |> O> found out about it by accident... |> O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested |> O> the switch. "No, I did not." "Aren't you ?" "No." |> Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but |> I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own |> line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to |> place a long-distance call from Tom's line,.... I agree with this theory, but unfortunately, there are a number of customer service reps who don't know how to implement this theory. All customer service reps are trained in a two week class, and in that two week class, about one semester's worth of Telecomm 101 is shoved down their throat, and three days is left to use the CICS-VS system MCI uses on their IBM 3090's. (The specific CICS system was named OCIS [On-Line Customer Information System]). Even for me, coming from a totally different computing environment and never having used an IBM 3270 terminal, it was difficult (I caught on the telecomm part real easily). Let's face it, customer service is there for one purpose only in any industry, to hold people's hands. Comprehensive training to use the equipment is secondary. Most of the customer service new-hires always end up getting trained by their next-door cubicle neighbors, not in the training class. And the new-hire, with 30+ calls on hold, isn't going to go run off to find his/her manager or "group leader" for something he or she does not understand. He or she is going to take a guess. Personally, I'd ask the rep how long they have been working there. Over three months would be a minimum. Six months to one year is preferable. Over one year is considered an "old-timer", and is rare in their Customer Service Department. |> J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from |> J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes.... |> J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome |> J> to MCI's 1+ service. Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI |> J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor, |> J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING? Yes, in fact I did. |> J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI |> J> again, without my permission. Can you tell that I'm annoyed? |> Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications |> accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents, |> NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain- |> tances:.... [etc] All done on mag tape. Nameless and faceless. No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC (L.D. Company) concerning my PIC (Primary Interexchange Carrier, or L.D. company)" wil ever help anybody in the U.S. of A. All that is done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered (like "Customer is a 5150"* [see note below]) etc ... but the computer could care less about those notes. It still will merrily process the PIC change off the mag tape. Computers out of control: This should be a comp.risks issue, really. A telemarketer sets off a chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable. Only the hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try. Robert Michael Gutierrez Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. (Footnote: "5150" is the Welfare and Institutions code that gives the State of California power to incarcerate anybody found to "mentally unstable", and is the official California Highway Patrol code for "Mental Case". "5150" designations were used liberally at MCI at one period in time until they got nervous about it.) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What Is This World Coming To? Date: 23 Sep 90 00:09:00 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Sep 22 at 22:07, Lou Judice writes: > What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to > strangers, and/or can't wait two minutes to get to make a darned > telephone call? I would agree, but there was one time that I couldn't take it anymore and whipped out the phone anyway. To set the scene, you have to know something about the San Jose airport. Picture a sign that reads "San Jose Municipal Airport" and the "Municipal" is scratched out and the word "International" is scrawled above it. That describes the pretentions. OK, on with the story. I was scheduled to fly to Burbank (a minor flight) and the delays were mounting. "Ladies and Gentlemen, we regret to inform you [of another excuse for the flight being delayed]". So I went to the nearest Pac*Bell payphone to call my customer and announce my delay. It seems that all of the phones in the San Jose Cattle Airport are on some screwy carrier back to the CO on 95 Almaden Ave. And at that time, it was out of whack. Apparently the DTMF was being distorted to the point of unrecognition. It took several attempts to dial the call, and it was impossible to enter the calling card. The operator could barely understand me (from any payphone -- they were all the same) and so I gave up. On board the plane, we hit more delays and were informed that it would be at least twenty minutes before we would be in position to take off. That did it. Out came the cellular phone and a quick and easy call was made to my customer. Being fully aware of the RF ramifications, it was the least I could do to an airline that had really blown it. However, since we did eventually take off and arrive safely in Burbank, it apparently did them no harm. > Sorry, I just don't get it! Sometimes one can't help it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!) Date: 23 Sep 90 02:36:06 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Sep 23 at 0:51, Todd Inch writes: > Yes, all my LD calls are normally intRA-state, inter-LATA (206 to 509) > but Sprint never EVER mentioned intER-state call savings, or > intRA-state exceptions, or "average calling patterns" or anything like > that. > >10 cents per minute anywhere in US. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is a continuation of the BIG LIE. It means "anywhere except > within your own state." But, who would ever dial long distance inside > their own state? (sarcastic smiley here) This is a point that should probably get more than a mention, particularly for those who live in the western United States. Intrastate rates, not being regulated by the FCC, are usually a ripoff. And ALL advertising by the IXCs involves interstate calling. That's just fine for folks who live in the tiny (areawise) eastern states and make lots of calls across state lines. But a lot of us out here find that virtually all of our calling is within the state. In fact, many businesses find that the majority of calling is within the LATA. A frequent converstation I find myself having is with LD salescritters who can't understand that it doesn't make any difference what carrier my client uses -- it won't affect the amount spent on telephone calls one bit. Ninety-nine percent of the toll calls are carried by Pac*Bell anyway. A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check out this plan or that plan involving long distance. Unfortunately, no IXCs currently offer any calling discounts for traffic within California. Since I make about two calls outside the state per month, no IXCs interstate rates or packages interest me in any way. Periodically, I do review my calling within the state and look for the best bargain. Right now, it's AT&T, particularly their WATS service. Recently, I checked the various rates and found Sprint intrastate INWATS to be nearly twice the AT&T rate. When the Sprint rep proudly quoted me the rate, I mentioned that I would stick with AT&T. He asked why and I told him that he had just quoted an amount that was double AT&T's. He insisted that I was mistaken and then went into a spiel about how when I actually got the bill, I would find that I had been "misled" by AT&T. Then I told him that I was looking at my bill. He told me that he needed to check it out and would call me back. Still waiting. Moral of the story: Be very careful when shopping for intrastate rates. Don't just assume that everyone is cheaper than AT&T. In fact, don't assume anything! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 06:09:52 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! In-Reply-To: message from tad@ssc.UUCP > In article <12187@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich > Sims) writes: >> For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than >> AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher. > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package > against Sprint's regular rates? I dunno ... ask Sprint "how it can be"! As I've already said, the rates compared were Sprint's best rates (at least, the best ones they told me about) and AT&T's ROA plan. Are you trying to say that the comparison is only valid if Sprint's best rate is better than AT&T's worst rate? I can save you lots of money on all your daytime L/D calls myself, and no hassles with changing your current L/D carrier, either. Just start making the calls at night! Send me the $5 signup fee and 10% of your monthly savings, please. :-) I hereby extend my previously stated offer to discuss a "wonderful business opportunity" to you, also! ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Date: 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <12439@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is >encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by >a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees >the light of day. A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? A gigantic lookup table? I really am curious about this, the sarcasm is just a side-effect. :-) Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ From: Isaac Rabinovitch Subject: Stealing ATM PINS Date: 23 Sep 90 15:43:32 GMT Reply-To: claris!netcom!ergo@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: UESPA In <12369@accuvax.nwu.edu> davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: >john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> Do you think that he is capturing all those >> PINs in the back room so that he can retire to Tahiti? I would lay >> odds that the merchant does not record your PIN, which is normally >> simply sent along with the rest of the encrypted transaction to the >> banking center or network... >Precisely. If the ATM terminals found in stores are anything like the >ATMs in banks, it just encrypts the number on the card and the PIN and >sends them off to the bank computer for verification. You're assuming that the terminal is functioning the way it was meant to. An obvious way to steal PINs would be to modify the terminal so that it records each PIN before transmitting it. True, this would be too sophisticated a fraud to be managed by your typical dishonest merchant (the kind that pads his credit-card transactions). But it occurs to me that somebody who knows your PIN can authorize a lot of heavy-duty funds transfers. ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: The Phone Book Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:30:24 EDT Someone wanted some details on a publication called "The Phone Book" written by an ex-Bell employee. The Phone Book - What the Telephone Company Would Rather You Not Know by J. Edward Hyde (a nom de plume) The copyright on it was 1976 Publisher: Henry Regnery Company of Chicago (Canadian publication by Beaverbooks in Pickering Ontario) Library of Congress Catalog Card #: 76-6275 ISBN: 0-8092-8008-6 Indeed, it is something of an inside scoop of the old Bell monopoly; it is now something of a historical reference what with the divestiture and other technological changes ... however, some rather shady stuff, and some rather humorous stuff, gets an airing. More details can be provided if there is interest. [Moderator's Note: Why not! It is an old book, and somewhat out of date as a result of divestiture, but if you would care to quote a few of the juicier tales I imagine some readers would enjoy it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 21 Sep 90 19:17:49 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept How can you find out the number of a given phone? I seem to recall that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback. What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line you're calling on? Are there any numbers you can call that will tell you your own number (like how (700)555-4141 tells you your LD carrier)? Pat [Moderator's Note: In nearly every telephone exchange there is some number which will read back the number of the phone placing the call. There is no standardization to this; the numbers are different everywhere, and change frequently. They are always non-pub, of course. I suppose you could always make a collect call from the phone in question to a number you control, then examine your phone bill when it arrives the next month to see whose call you agreed to pay for. The linemen can call the test board, but there has to be some reasonable excuse, such as a pending work order. It also helps if the test board recognizes your name/voice. The most honest way to go about it would be to ask the person who owns the phone, "what number is this?" PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 10:59:00 EDT From: David Appell Subject: References Wanted on Toll Fraud I'd appreciate any references to books or journal articles on the history and current state of fraud on telephone networks. Thanks. David Appell ...att!hou2d!appell ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #669 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08818; 23 Sep 90 21:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25412; 23 Sep 90 20:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26316; 23 Sep 90 19:11 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 18:57:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #670 BCC: Message-ID: <9009231857.ab31764@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Sep 90 18:57:22 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 670 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture [via Steve Elias] Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Craig Jackson] Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Donald E. Kimberlin] Equal Access on College Campus [James Watcher] Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup [David E. A. Wilson] Burglar Alarm Problems [Nigel Allen] AMI on T1 Lines [Roger Fajman] AT&T USAdirect Service News: New Regions; Slightly Better Rates [W. Uhrig] MCI Around Town Surcharge and +1 800 444 4444 [tim@maggot.gg.caltech.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 16:12:59 -0400 From: Steve Elias Patrick -- here are some edited email messages from my Sprint friend. I've cleaned up the grammar and stuff (I guess Telemail has a fairly hokey editor.) Comments from a person who works for Sprint. He is writing his own opinions, not the official company line: ---------- About 800 from intrastate, there is nothing illegal about it from an OCC standpoint. I don't know what the deal is about ATT having a different 800 # for intrastate but I think it goes back to the days of band 5 wats type stuff. I will check this. Again, the ATT guy was right [I was wrong -- eli]; It's not that ATT is giving switching stuff away, it's giving away PBX and telephone equipment and services. I will get back into this when I get a chance to give a more in-depth reply. One other thing: ATT was extremely inefficient prior to divestiture, going from 400k employees to 240k wasn't because they needed the money, it was to cut out fat. Also, when you are digital, you need less manpower to maintain. ---------- Subj: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin The guy has a few points, he's not quite right on all of them. But he did point out a few flaws in your [Eli's] argument. I can't go into them all right now but I will mention a few things. 1) Most important: ATT can combine long distance and equipment. NOBODY ELSE CAN to that extent because nobody else owned a company like Western Electric. For large customers looking for all in one vendors (ie: tariff 12) this is where it makes a huge difference and where the free "pops" in the equipment arena hurts (this is illegal by the way, but is under the table). The thing that stops MCI and Sprint is that it's impossible for us to do that unless say, we get Northern Telecom to throw in some free stuff to subsidize our contracts -- not likely. You get the idea, one side of the company subsidizes the other (in the ATT world which is a luxury OCCs don't have.) 2) The residential market is NOT relatively unprofitable; it's extremely profitable because overhead is much less than in say, the WATS area of the business. Also, the big argument about price ceilings and floors in the FCC had to do with ATT lowering rates for tariff 12 type large customers to lock them in and subsidizing this by raising residential rates. To some extent this is exactly what has been done. 3) Don't let anyone kid you, ATT was at one time the largest company in the world. Even today, in an unregulated environment, they could blow anybody away. It isn't in their best interest to do that now because, then, they would be right back where they started and the feds would crank down harder. The idea is, to gain as much market as possible but make sure a few of the OCCs get some crumbs to keep the 'competitive market' alive. ---------- Subject: Monopolies (was: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin) ATT is probably about 10-15 times our size; closer to 10 I think. Also, you forgot to mention 800. ATT has major control over that market: about 90%. There are also only a limited # of exchanges available to OCCs. Also, there isn't yet portability of 800 numbers so pretty much when you have a good number or want a specific number, it depends who has the exchange. Again, ATT has 90%. ---------- The deal of the consent decree (the deal of the century) ended up with ATT taking the most profitable parts of Ma Bell (Long Lines and equipment) and dropping the least profitable (RBOCs). The original goal of Justice in the whole antitrust suit was to separate Western Electric from ATT. This fight goes back to Eisenhower (I think) in 1954. Read _The Deal of the Century_ by Stephen Cole. [all previous text written by the US Sprint person, edited by Steve Elias.] Peace. eli [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along, but I again ask why it is your friend at Sprint feels it is necessary to remain anonymous. No one else does that here, and we have had many far more controversial messages than your friend has sent along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Craig Jackson drilex1 Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Date: 22 Sep 90 16:03:05 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In article <12329@accuvax.nwu.edu> asuvax!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past >> acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up, >> that's for sure. PAT] >Sure it is. Such behavior is the lowest-level manifestation of what >'the company' had become. Directly or indirectly, this activity was >representative of the company's attitude and philosophy - the overall >AT&T gestalt, if you will. >[Moderator's Note: Then we disagree on the extent of the 'jerk-ism', >and its prevalence in the old Bell System. My experience was that the >fools there were only a very small percentage of the total work force. >Most of the people were hard workers, dedicated to the welfare of the >customers. I agree that really serious forms of jerk-ism, like breaking into people's calls from the frame, was uncommon before, and is probably uncommon today. I suspect that milder forms of jerk-ism, like listening to those calls, was as common as idle time in the frame. The breakup seems to have reduced that idle time, judging from telco employment statistics. Electronic exchanges have also contributed to this -- by eliminating most needs for monitoring personnel, less people are standing around the frame, busy or not. Pre-breakup telco personnel were dedicated professionals, at least when they weren't on strike. But there probably were too many of them, and the subset of them who worked in the business office all too often were not interested in serving the customer, but rather the company. About the breakup, I don't think it was morally necessary. I do think that it was necessary to remove all monopolies, local and long-distance. (The fact that the local monopolies have not been eliminated does not change my opinion.) I also think that given the political clout of the higher echelons of AT&T, something like the breakup would have been necessary to get through to them that things were supposed to change. Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb} ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:43:56 CDT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin John writes The only direct competitor attack that {referring here to AT&T} >I have noticed seems to be against MCI in the use of the counters at >the bottom of the screen showing the "big savings". This is a direct >takeoff on the old MCI commercials. >Which ads go after Sprint specifically? It probably is a regional thing, John. The nets and local buys allow smart advertisers to vary campaigns by areas. Here, we get a mixture of the slams on MCI with counters, but also an equal proportion of panning the "Sprint Pin-Drop." ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 19:38:05 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: Equal Access on College Campus? Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same). Is this strictly legal? I haven't checked to see whether 10XXX dialing is permitted, but I would gather that it is not, given the state of affairs. Can anything be done about this, considering that it is indeed a campus, and as such the facilities are either privately owned or in some other sort of legal grey area which exempts them from having to provide Equal Access? James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license!) nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu (fast) PO Box 875 Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow) [Moderator's Note: Not long ago a thread here in the Digest discussed blocking of 10xxx from privately owned switches. I maintained it was not legal to block access (after all, the court order called for it to work that way), and a couple special issues of the Digest were devoted to rebuttals from folks saying they should have the right to run their switches the way they wanted. That's where it seems to stand at this point. A university would seem to be a re-seller of long distance service (except for its own administrative calls) and probably would be in a different category than a business in which all the long distance calls placed were presumably administrative, or business related. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 08:47:34 GMT A few months ago I mentioned that Telecom/OTC were now providing IDD itemised bills to customers on new exchanges. My quarterly phone bill arrived with my first itemised IDD call: Date Time Place Number Min:Sec $ 19 Jul 11:06pm USA Rhode Is 1401863xxxx 1:59 2.42 [my xxxx's] So on a sample of one I guess OTC at least decodes the country and area code to get the place. As for Trunk call itemisation, metropolitan residential customers will start getting it in November, 1990 and all should have it by 1994. Country residential customers should have it by 1997. This should give us one of the most missed features of the US phone system. We don't have COCOTs - although businesses can rent Telecom Gold Phones and get the difference between the 22c charged to subscribers and the 30c charged to pay phone users (per call unit). Telecom are going to introduce pre-purchase phone cards (looks similar to the Japanese variety - punches a hole to show the remaining value of the card). They hope this will reduce vandalism by reducing the coins held in the phone. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Burglar Alarm Problems Reply-To: ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 06:45:21 GMT Walter Kemmerer describes receiving strange calls at five-minute intervals that turned out to originate from a fried alarm system. It is probably a bad idea to rely upon an alarm system that calls 911 itself. In Toronto, the police will not respond to computer-generated emergency calls because if the large number of false alarms. If you want a burglar alarm system, you should probably consider having one installed by a reputable contractor and monitored by a reputable security company. When an alarm comes in, the security company calls 911. Security is more than just alarms, of course. Your local police department can offer advice on making your house less attractive to burglars (good locks everywhere, lights above all entrance-ways, Neighborhood Watch programs, etc.). If you run a BBS and ask new users to request validation in writing or to send you a financial contribution, consider using a post office box so that your address is not widely known. ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 13:06:28 EDT Subject: AMI on T1 Lines I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1 lines. I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on T1/T3 technology. (I liked the course, by the way.) Now I would like to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the course notes. AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not defined. A reference to look it up in would be helpful too, especially if it's a publication likely to be found in a computer-oriented library. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 5:43:50 CDT From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: AT&T USAdirect Service News: New Regions; Slightly Better Rates ***** for an updated free wallet card, call 1-800-874-4000 ext. 374 ***** I just received ATT's International TraveLer Newsletter in which they announce USAdirect service availability in some new regions and better rates in some others (as follows): a) The initial rate period is reduced from three to one minute (additional minutes rate is effective after first minute.) b) The rate for "additional minutes" stays the same, but the "initial minute" is slightly cheaper. NEW regions (and their access numbers) are: Anguilla 1-800-872-2881 Antigua Boatphone Marine 872 Bermuda 1-800-872-2881 Egypt 356-0200 El Salvador 190 Haiti 001-800-872-2881 Honduras 123 Malaysia 800-0011 Montserat 1-800-872-2881 Zimbabwe 110-899 Examples of (new) RATES for some countries: [rates per minute] Australia $3.10 $1.25 [first minute seems unusual] Bahamas $1.20 $.78 Bermuda $1.27 $.85 Brazil $2.50 $1.04 France $1.71 $1.06 Germany $1.77 $1.09 Japan $3.36 $1.24 Korea $3.10 $1.37 Netherlands $1.70 $1.05 UK $1.20 $.94 Applicable Service Charges: (per call) AT&T Calling Card $2.50 Collect $5.75 Person-to-Person $6.00 ------------------------------ From: Subject: MCI Around Town Surcharge and +1 800 444 4444 Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 23 Sep 90 18:45:48 GMT I read in this group that Around Town calls are no longer free of surcharge, but cost 25c per call surcharge. I asked an MCI representative if that is the case, and she confirmed it. I recently listened to the information available on MCI's information line (+1 800 444 4444) .... "The unique money saving feature ... is called Around Town. ...can save you up to 80c on every card call. ...Around Town savings means that your calls are free of normal..." I had kept replaying the message to get the actual wording. After awhile, the computer must have tired of talking to me and handed me off to a live person (:-D). I asked her why the message claimed there was no surcharge for Aound Town, and she said that AROUND TOWN IS STILL FREE OF SURCHARGE IF YOU CALL FROM WITHIN A FEW FEET of your own house. Does anybody know if this is really the case? Can MCI distinguish actual distances within a single prefix? I guess I'll have to watch my phone bill closely. (I use the feature even from my own home to avoid outrageously high PacBell intra-lata long distance charges. I can't dial 10xxx because PacBell blocks that for intra-lata calls. The absense of a surcharge on the 950-1022 calls was a convenient work-around.) Tim [Moderator's Note: Did she say 'from within a few feet' or was that a typographical error on your part? From within a few feet would entitle one to use their cordless phone in the backyard, I guess. When I called the recording just now, it made reference to 'within your local calling area', which I assume means your toll-free area. Why don't you call again and ask a live human-being there for more specifics. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #670 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09835; 23 Sep 90 22:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07096; 23 Sep 90 21:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae25412; 23 Sep 90 20:14 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:09:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #671 BCC: Message-ID: <9009232009.ab12096@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:09:04 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 671 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATM at Retailer's (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Randal Schwartz] Re: Signal Routes [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Peter da Silva] Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ken Stox] Re: Answering Machine Messages [Donald E. Kimberlin] Canadian Cellular Users [Ken Jongsma] Audible Ringback (was: Leaving Brief Messages) [Donald E. Kimberlin] 1-900-963-3333 [Peter da Silva] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David E.A. Wilson] TCA Social Studies [Bill Cerny] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 00:14:10 GMT In article <12469@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!king@uunet (Steven King) writes: | >You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is | >encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by | >a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees | >the light of day. | A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? | A gigantic lookup table? | I really am curious about this, the sarcasm is just a side-effect. :-) One algorithm is a query-response ... Bank sends QUERY (a random number) to merchant box. Merchant box sends QUERY to keypad. You enter PIN into keypad. Chip in keypad computes oneway (QUERY,PIN) as RESPONSE, sends that to merchant box. Merchant box sends RESPONSE to bank. Bank computes oneway (QUERY,PIN), compares it with RESPONSE, and says yay or nay. See... the PIN is both at the bank, and in the keypad, but nowhere else. And recording the traffic for later replay won't help. (Yes, there are *other* ways.) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:49:18 CDT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Signal Routes? William carries a thread : >On Timothy C Wolfson (tcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu ) >writes: >TC> 1.) I use my telephone to make an intrastate call. Is there a >TC> possibility that the signals, whether via wire or microwave, >TC> etc., will be routed over the state line? WD> Sure. Happens all the time. In fact, the principle is worldwide. You may have noticed recent posts on here that a reader in South Africa found calls to Kuwait were going via England. It's a very common principle, much like mail or freight, "Not your concern how we get it there, so long as we deliver it undamaged." >TC> 2.) Same idea, but instead of a telephone, I send an email >TC> message to another computer on a network. WD> Even more likely. If the email message depends on batched WD> transmissions over the PSTN, it often makes sense to send them to an WD> out-of-state hub and back in to take advantage of lower interstate WD> rates. Adding to Bill's remarks, it is even more likely yet on an international basis. Many underdeveloped nations do not even physically have a hub, so everything for the nation is done in a partition of a larger nation's machine. This principle extends at least as far back as Telex, in which some notable cases were: Iran Telex subscribers actually getting their Telex "dial tone" from New York, about 9300 miles away; lesser cases for Trinidad getting theirs from Montreal and Martinique getting theirs from Paris. Makes for interesting routing table work in international public networks. ------------------------------ From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 19:10:11 GMT As quoted from <12430@accuvax.nwu.edu> by Norman R Tiedemann : | In article <12341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu | (Mark Wilkins) writes: | >The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone | >inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a | >three-way call? Or did this have to be intentional? | He calls you, (to schedule the appointment or whatever), gets your | machine and decides he doesn't want to leave a message. He taps the | switch hook, which instead of hanging up, gives him the second line, | the CO on your end doesn't even detect the disconnect and keeps your | machine connected (and recording). He now has a threeway setup between | your machine, himself and the next person he called. Everything is I had the younger brother to this problem for a while. When I moved into the apartment I currently live in, the local CO had an older version of the custom calling package; for example, they had call waiting but no way to turn it off. Until they upgraded, I could not simply flash the switch-hook to hang up, despite the fact that I had *only* call waiting, none of the other features. I got into the habit of holding the switch-hook down for a count of five before dialing another number. I think the problem is gone now, since the CO has upgraded to support *70 (1170), etc., but since I still use the count- of-five approach, I don't know for certain. I also got into the habit of making sure I had dial tone before doing anything else. Until I got wise and changed my ways, a caller (or callee) might have gotten a bit of a surprise just after I supposedly hung up. (Not that this happened often; much more often was that I'd continue to get the busy signal I'd gotten the first time I tried to dial out.) Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:12:07 GMT In article <12442@accuvax.nwu.edu> nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu (watcher) writes: >Some years ago I heard of an automatic call fowarding device (this was >before call forwarding was offered as an option by the telcos; it was, >in fact, pre-divestiture) that worked like this: you had two lines; >the first one rings (your "real" number); device dials out on the >second line; then conferences the lines together. Sure, you would have >to have two lines, but if you already have an extra one for the >dial-out modem, this wouldn't be a problem. When I took the public tour of the FBI building, the agent giving the tour described these devices as "cheese boxes", typically used by bookies to keep simple call traces from finding them. The agent said that now, bookies just use the call forwarding feature of the line to do the job. I told here that was dumb, because the forwarding number was in the telco data base ... and got a very strange look in response. I got the impression that they were deliberately trying to encourage would-be bookies to use the call forwarding method. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:30:27 GMT In article <12433@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > It will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data > will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps > modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems. I doubt it. As soon as modems come into the picture the *real* bandwidth costs go way up. If ISDN isn't way cheaper than modems it'll be purely for political reasons. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Ken Stox Subject: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Organization: BALR Corporation Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 15:16:18 GMT Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. All the statements I have seen, so far, seem to agree that a data call costs the operating company the same as a voice call. TTBOMK (To The Best Of My Knowledge), this is not true for the following reasons: First of all, I should state this is the case for a DIGITAL phone system. If everything were still analog, many would be false. In fact, this is where the problem lies! It seems that everyone is using the analog case. 1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only be that way until it reaches the C.O. 2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through the phone network. 3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence. When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc. 4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not allow any other packets through. So, we can now understand why the RBOC's get so blustered about data traffic. The service that they expected you to use 50% of, you are using 100% of. I am sure we all feel a great deal of pity for that poor accountant, who, at this very moment is writhing in agony over uncollected potential revenue. No doubt, in the not so distant future, the RBOC's will figure out how to bill you on a packet by packet basis. This may be the beginning of a much more equitable method of billing ( right, when hell freezes over :-> ) by which the customer purchases X number of packets at a given routing grade. Well, someday, maybe ISDN. Ken Stox internet: stox@balr.com BALR Corporation uucp: {uunet|att|attmail}!balr!stox 600 Enterprise Drive voice: (708) 575-8200 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:53:36 CDT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages The story so far (in Digest v10, Iss648>: >mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >>...l record the " The number you have >reached ... >>has been disconnected..." which I save for later use. Then, when >>the time comes ... I leave >the "special" OGM tape in. David responded: >My housemate did this once, and the confusion it caused among >callers, and their queries to the phone company, ultimately caused NJ >Bell to call him and tell him, "Hey, just cut it out, OK." Gee, I'm surprised some minion of NJ Bell didn't swoop down with intimidation that threatened disconnecting the phone for real, because you were "violating the LAW" by transmitting a false message! (They really would be right, you know.) Anyhow, must have been one of the "new heads" in the business. Refreshing in that regard. Maybe we are making some progress toward humanized relations in the public telecommunications sector. ------------------------------ Subject: Canadian Cellular Users Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:52:19 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Some interesting factoids on Cellular Service in Canada: o Canada accounts for 500,000 of the worlds 6 million users o Toronto has the most concentrated urban network o 95% of Canadian users are male o 70% of corporate users are small businesses (Facts from an article in this week's {Insight Magazine}) Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:39:56 CDT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Subject: Audible Ringback (was: Leaving Brief Messages...) Dell writes : >What you hear (called 'ringback' in the telephony industry) does not >directly correspond to the ringing of the phone on the other end of >the line. In fact, its "slang name" among many local telco people is "pacifier ring." >The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is >actually ringing on the other end. Correction: I'd like to say it means that there is a presumption that the phone on the other end is ringing. If the instrument on the receiving end is dead or optioned off; if the line is open, or if, indeed there is a ringing relay in the office out of adjustment, you get the "pacifier," but nothing notifies the party you are calling. This IS a major weakness of the analog plant that ISDN will cure ... someday. Incidence of maladjusted ringing relays in mechanical plant is FAR higher than anyone would ever admit, as well. I found one town of about 10,000 people in New Jersey where a full 60% of incoming long trunk calls from other exchanges were not ringing through! Saddest of all, this condition was known and permitted to continue for months, even by the telco plant management of the entire area. Such situations were not unusual in the days of the telco monolith, and probably still exist in some corners. THESE are the sorts of "problems" that the stock answer of, "Just wait for the new exchange" are meant for ... but in the meantime, just do the maintenance job you are being paid for? Nah. ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: 1-900-963-3333 Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:34:48 GMT While sitting here reading TELECOM Digest, I was just interrupted by one of those call-back-at-a-900-number scams. Any way of finding out who's at the other end of a 900 number without calling the 900 line? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 00:04:09 GMT gutierre@noc.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) writes: >Computers out of control: >This should be a comp.risks issue, really. A telemarketer sets off a >chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable. Only the >hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try. This is beginning to sound like John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" where with a single call a malicious person could stop your phone service (and your credit) until you somehow managed to get the tapeworm killed. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: TCA Social Studies Date: 23 Sep 90 22:22:18 GMT For those visiting America's Finest City for TCA, there will be a couple of evening forums hosted by the San Diego Chapter of AC*ID (Abolish Caller*ID) and Mothers Against COCOTs. On Tuesday evening, the venue is the Bayou Bar & Grill, 329 Market (corner of Fourth), a short walk from the Convention Center/Marriott. The concluding session will be held at the Princess of Wales Pub, 1665 India (quite a hike from the Convention Center; take the trolley). The jaws start flapping around six both evenings. Look for the brown 2500 set on the bar. For additional info, call Bill Cerny on (619) 287-5050 (locals: AC*ID is conducting a membership drive! No annual dues, and a different bar each month!) %^) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #671 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20144; 24 Sep 90 10:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14735; 24 Sep 90 8:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12522; 24 Sep 90 7:21 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 6:48:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #672 BCC: Message-ID: <9009240648.ab23027@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Sep 90 06:47:52 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 672 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim] Moderator = Chaotic Evil (was: Telephone Humour) [Talking Head] Re: Answering Machine Messages and SIT [Tad Cook] Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service [Barton F. Bruce] Re: The Phone Book [Christopher Ambler] USEnet PC Access [John Stanley] Re: ATM at Retailers [David Lemson] A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976) [Mark Brader] Re: Stealing ATM PINS [John Higdon] Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Dave O'leary] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hui Lin Lim Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 23 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT Organization: HP Singapore > (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country, > in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different > ring patterns). Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it require an ISDN switch etc? Thanks, HuiLin Lim HP Singapore limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Talking Head Subject: Moderator = Chaotic Evil (Was: Telephone Humour) Date: 23 Sep 90 17:40:54 GMT Organization: New York University cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) writes: >Our Moderator recently said... >>>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a >>>major violation of trust.... PAT] >>[Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you >>still think it is funny? PAT] >Come on, Pat, lighten up. It's going to happen. It happens in ALL >areas. Some of the computer labs I have worked in DELIGHTED in >sending messages to novice users' screens. Similarly to the phone >I guess my point is, do you expect this industry to be free from this >sort of behaviour? I don't. Hmmm, I can only hope our Moderator is not one of those outspoken, righteous No-Can-Do-Wrongs who society later uncovers as having an unspeakable miasma of heretical beliefs and a past full of unameable criminal acts against nature and the law. 8^o What sort of chaotic little secrets do you hide that the net can't yet see... ? ;-) Lee(); --- garif@nyu.edu [Moderator's Note: Oh, plenty of them, I'm sure. Take your pick: mass murderer; drug dealer; you name it. I'll be whatever you'd like. Today being my birthday, I was particularly pleased to receive your note since it does everyone good to be abused occasionally. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages and SIT Date: 23 Sep 90 22:12:45 GMT In article <12335@accuvax.nwu.edu>, visix!amanda@uunet.uu.net (Amanda Walker) writes: > I've been wondering how useful (or conversely, confusing) it would be > to have an answering machine message which started with an SIT and > then went on into a "normal" announcement. John Higdon claimed in a telephone coversation earlier this year that recording SIT on an answering machine outgoing message tape will fool many COCOTs into refunding money. He claimed that this was very useful on a personal voice mailbox, as one could walk up to any COCOT and retrieve messages for free! 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: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service Date: 23 Sep 90 21:55:53 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. I wonder if LECs could get into the LD brokering business in the following way: I would be perfectly happy if they got a reasonable and VERY small commission to perform the following service for me. If there were some way the IXCs could dynamically on a minute by minute basis advertise their willingness to accept traffic at substantially lower than normal rate probably in some predefined steps, the LEC could connect me to the current bargain of the minute carrier. Perhaps some SS7 message could carry the bid pricing. Perhaps the 10000 code is unassigned it could be the flag that I was requesting optimised routing to brokered cutrate service. Perhaps this optimised routing should be for some flat monthly service charge rather than a call by call charge. This could lead to some very interesting off hours pricing, and if the 'big boys' didn't want to bid, maybe some resellers of BIG-BOY's services would bid, probably forcing everyone to. ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) Subject: Re: The Phone Book Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 3:0:53 GMT djcl@contact.uucp (woody) recently informed us: >The Phone Book - What the Telephone Company Would Rather You Not Know >by J. Edward Hyde (a nom de plume) A quick jaunt down to the Cal Poly library found this book on the shelf, so I checked it out and read it the other night. I agree, it's interesting, but quite dated. Pre-breakup, pre-ESS (well, not really, it's mentioned, but in the vein of "here we have this new thing that will make it all better")... Very biased. The author does NOT like the phone company. I suppose my favourite part is where the author lists the rates for DX calling in 1976, and muses on what they will be 10 years hence. Heh. He also lists some possible future scenarios, like vidphone, call forwarding, call tracing (hints at ANI) and other things. He mentions that all of these things "can be done today, but because of [blah blah I-hate-the-phone-co] you won't see them for years." As of this time, he's about 50% on the mark. All in all, interesting, but I'm sure there's better... Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 90 22:47:14 EDT From: John Stanley <73765.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: USEnet PC Access Help. I am looking for a cheap PC package that does UUCP mail and news. I have a free one that does mail, but no news. Vortex has a $335 package that does both, but fails the cheap condition. I am getting really tired of Compuserve time charges, but want NEWS! I already have set up contact with a UUCP source (cheap, mail to info@psi.com), now I need the receiving end. Any ideas/names? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:16:24 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers In a message of 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT, Steven King writes: >In article <12439@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. >Kaufman) writes: >>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is >>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by >>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees >>the light of day. >A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? >A gigantic lookup table? The bank doesn't need to "decode" it. The bank's computer knows what your PIN is supposed to be. So, it codes it with the same trap-door algorithm as the keypad did, and compares the two. FYI, this is the same way that the Unix operating system encrypts passwords with a one-way coding scheme, and stores them encoded. My guess is that your bank's computer stores your PIN encoded, so it simply compares the encoded incoming message with the encoded number stored in the machine. David Lemson d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 20:33:30 -0400 I received a response from Australia to my recent posting relating to Bell Canada's new restriction on 976-numbers: > Could you please tell me what a 976 number is, and what do you have > against them? Perhaps you could post the answer to the digest for > the benefit of other non-N.American readers. Okay, for the benefit of non-North-American readers: 976-numbers are operated by businesses that you do business with simply by calling their phone number. When you connect to a 976 number, a fee (payable to the business operating the number) is automatically charged on your phone bill. This is in addition to any regular phone company charges for reaching the number. 976-numbers look like ordinary (7-digit) phone numbers that just happen to begin with the three digits 976: for example, 976-1234. The reason for the use of those particular numbers, like other "why that number?" questions in North America, seems to go back to the days when phone numbers began with letters, using the equivalence 2=ABC 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PRS 8=TUV 9=WXY. Not a lot of words start with the letter combinations for 97, so those numbers were generally available. (I don't know if there were ever, say, WRight numbers, or if 97 was always reserved. Anyone know? I might ask the same question about 55, which is similarly reserved for special purposes. In movies and TV shows, 555-numbers are often used so as to not coincide with any real numbers, and the scriptwriters noted long ago that KLondike was 55; were there ever any real KLondikes?) Now, in some parts of North America, there is a clear distinction between local calls (which are free or cheap) and long-distance calls (which cost more), and this distinction does not follow area code boundaries. In some areas they are dialed in different ways so that you can't incur a long-distance charge by accident. (This distinction in dialing is doomed over the coming years, for reasons related to the exhaustion of available numbers.) In the Bell Canada service area (i.e. most of Ontario and Quebec plus some of the Northwest Terrritories), there is such a distinction in dialing, and calls to 976-numbers are always dialed as long distance. This remains true even though actual long-distance calls to 976-numbers are now to be blocked. There is a second flavor of number that works the same way; these are 900-numbers. They are dialable from a wider area than 976-numbers, and in this case the 900 replaces the area code, e.g., 900-333-1234. The world, or at least North America, got by just fine until a few years ago without these numbers; their creation seems to have merely opened up a new niche for sleazy businesses, in particular, the sort who want to trick people into paying their charges. (All you have to do is make a phone call, right?) The advertisements that I see around here for them tend to be pathetic come-ons for dating and "talk" services. Another thing I've heard of them being used for, although not locally, is information-by-telephone services that formerly were free. It is for these reasons that I find myself feeling that we would be better off without these numbers at all. I understand that several other countries have the same concept, for example, Britain's 0898-numbers are similar to our 900's, but I've never heard of a simple name for it. Is there one? Do other countries have two flavors like our 976 (local) and 900 (callable from wide area)? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Stealing ATM PINS Date: 23 Sep 90 19:20:39 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Sep 23 at 17:39, Isaac Rabinovitch writes: > But it > occurs to me that somebody who knows your PIN can authorize a lot of > heavy-duty funds transfers. Only if there are heavy-duty funds to transfer. Also, I know of no place an ATM card (BTW, where does someone who has your PIN get a duplicate card?) can transact large amounts in one transaction. CASH ATMs have a small limit, and how much gas CAN you pump into your RoadHogster. As far as "transfering" money goes, it can only be done between accounts under the control of the card holder. And if it goes into a merchant account, how much trouble would it take to figure out who was up to something? Sorry, I don't consider this a real problem. Has it ever happened? I've never heard of a case. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 22:44:06 EDT From: dave o'leary Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines Roger Fajman wrote: >I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1 >lines. I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on >T1/T3 technology. (I liked the course, by the way.) Now I would like >to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our >clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the >course notes. AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not >defined. AMI is Alternate Mark Inversion. Basically it means that each ones bit is opposite in polarity from the ones bit proceeding it - this is used to deal with capacitive effects, etc. If two consecutive ones bits are received on the line with the same polarity, it is called a bipolar violation. These could be due to noise or a bunch of other factors. One's density is defined in different ways, with a certain number of ones bits necessary to maintain line energy and keep the repeaters in sync. FCC Part 68 and the AT&T 62411 specs disagree on what ones density means. I can provide more details if anyone cares. AMI does nothing to meet one's density requirements by itself - it just takes a synchronous bit stream and flips the ones bits. B8ZS is a technique used to maintain ones density - when the bit stream contains 8 consecutive zeroes, the "Binary 8 Zero Substitution" code is inserted in place of the 8 zeroes. This code intentionally contains a bipolar violation. This is why you have to work it out with the telco when you want to run B8ZS - their repeaters have to pass the bipolar violations (BPV's) rather than "fixing" them. Another technique for meeting ones density is called bit stuffing, i.e. you simply clock the DTE slower than 1.536 Mb/s and but a one bit into each byte, which is stripped out at the other end. When you work out the arithmetic it comes out to a DTE bit rate of 1.344 M/s, your ones density is insured, and AMI works as usual. The bit stuffing is not standardized between CSU's :-( so if you want different CSU manufacturer's equipment to talk to each other on different ends of the T1 (and not lose the extra bandwidth) then you need to run B8ZS. However, not all phone company equipment does B8ZS, although this seems to be getting a lot better. I guess this is why they say that B8ZS is preferable. Our C&P sales guy told us that B8ZS costs more and that we need to run ESF to use it (which I didn't understand...if anyone can explain that one I'd appreciate it). So basically you are always kind of running AMI, its just that B8ZS allows the special BPV's to get through. >A reference to look it up in would be helpful too, especially if it's >a publication likely to be found in a computer-oriented library. I've seen a bunch of books on the digital hierarchy around - however the ones I've purchased aren't with me right now. Two that I would recommend are a book by Bernard Keisler, which I can't remember the title of (something like Digital Transmission Systems, it is yellow with black lettering) and another book called something like "Megabit Communications Systems", I can't remember the author (it is orange and black). The Keisler book is older and is more technical/mathematical. The other book is new, from this year I think, and covers a wider range of material. I should have these books back by later this week, let me know if you can't find them. I saw the "Megabit.." book at the Maryland Book Exchange and at Reiter's downtown today. Good luck...drop me a line or give me a call if you have other questions... dave o'leary oleary@noc.sura.net SURAnet NOC Mgr. (301)982-3214 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #672 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21338; 24 Sep 90 11:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29543; 24 Sep 90 9:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14735; 24 Sep 90 8:26 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 7:24:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #673 BCC: Message-ID: <9009240724.ab26443@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:23:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 673 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Data Lines cs. Voice Lines [Dave O'leary] Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture [John Higdon] Re: Call-Me Card [Jim Riddle] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin] Re: CO's Split Across AC's [David Tamkin] Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Mark Steiger] 16 Buttons Not 12? [John Clayton Webster] Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Jim Riddle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 02:50:12 GMT In article <12469@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) writes: >In article <12439@accuvax.nwu.edu> I write: ->You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is ->encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by ->a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees ->the light of day. >A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? >A gigantic lookup table? No, the bank stores the encrypted PIN and does a straight match. The technique was invented by John Atalla, one of the early Fairchild people. Most of the bank PIN pads I have seen have been made by Atalla Technovations. The chip performs a one-way (e.g. many-to-one) encryption of an arbitrary number of key presses. It is sufficiently slow (deliberately) so that even if you got one of them it would take a VERY long time to try to find a sequence that gives you a particular output word. Since you really don't have access to the data link side of the system, you can't spoof it there. The link between an ATM (or merchant system) and the bank is encrypted also, so picking up the pair outside the building won't work either. By far the easiest way to learn a person's PIN is to look over his shoulder while he is typing it in (or hold him up at gunpoint). Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 23:21:08 EDT From: dave o'leary Subject: Re: Data Lines cs. Voice Lines stox@balr.com (Ken Stox) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 671, Message 6 of 12 >Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the >operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. All the >statements I have seen, so far, seem to agree that a data call costs >the operating company the same as a voice call. TTBOMK (To The Best Of >My Knowledge), this is not true for the following reasons: > First of all, I should state this is the case for a DIGITAL >phone system. If everything were still analog, many would be false. In >fact, this is where the problem lies! It seems that everyone is using >the analog case. > 1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only >be that way until it reaches the C.O. To the best of My knowledge, your connection is indeed analog to the CO in the general case, however.... > 2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your >phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through >the phone network. If the CO's are packetizing and integrating data and voice through the public network in the general case then I'd really like to hear about the details. These techniques will probably be common in the future (this is what ATM switching is all about) but I think there are only a couple of beta tests going on. > 3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence. >When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer >sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over >that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc. Byte interleaved multiplexing is done after the digitization - each analog signal gets a 64kb slot, times 24 slots plus framing bits yields the 1.544 Mb/s of a T1 line. Four T1's multiplexes to a T2, Seven T2's multiplex to a T3 (44.something Mb/s - this is how the signal generally travels over the inter-CO fiber and to the IXC POPs.) A modem's analog signal digitizes to the 64kb DS0 channel, just like a voice digitizes to a 64 kb DS0 channel. Sometimes compression is performed on the signals after digitization so more circuits can use a single DS0, I don't know how common this is, but the techniques are multiplexing rather than packet switching. > 4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet >for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not >allow any other packets through. The bits (either digitized voice or digitized data) are sent through the network in a 64kb virtual circuit. This 64kb is allocated for that particular call for the length of the call - nobody else's bits, either data or voice, are packet switched onto the virtual circuit. > So, we can now understand why the RBOC's get so blustered >about data traffic. The service that they expected you to use 50% of, >you are using 100% of. I am sure we all feel a great deal of pity for >that poor accountant, who, at this very moment is writhing in agony >over uncollected potential revenue. No doubt, in the not so distant >future, the RBOC's will figure out how to bill you on a packet by >packet basis. This may be the beginning of a much more equitable >method of billing ( right, when hell freezes over :-> ) by which the >customer purchases X number of packets at a given routing grade. Well, >someday, maybe ISDN. Well, there are a slew of acronyms for technologies and services that if/when they are implemented or available all the stuff typed in above will change. ATM, "Fast Packet", SMDS, Frame Relay, BISDN ... etc. Lots of fun. Of course, what Ken said earlier in his message about a digital network and integrated voice and data packetizing may apply to a private network. If such private networks do exist in practice, I'd be interested in hearing about them. From what I understand, however, the situation described does not exist in the present public network. dave o'leary oleary@noc.sura.net SURAnet NOC Mgr. (301)982-3214 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture Date: 23 Sep 90 20:41:33 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Sep 23 at 18:57, Steve Elias quotes "Deep Throat": > The deal of the consent decree (the deal of the century) ended up with > ATT taking the most profitable parts of Ma Bell (Long Lines and > equipment) and dropping the least profitable (RBOCs). And now the post divestiture RBOCs are racking up profits that are postively embarassing. Take a look at Pacific Telesis' quarterly report sometime. And if that wasn't enough, the MFJ (assuming the above) tilted the playing field in favor of the RBOCs. No competition in LATA calls, "FCC Mandated Access Charge (money for nothing; chicks for free)", the ability to charge extra for nearly every aspect of providing exchange service, etc., etc., are now the give-away perks of a guaranteed rate of return. And as the final (what on earth could be next?) stroke, the attitude that RBOCs no longer need any supervision. State PUCs are saying, "Now just be good and play by the rules (that you made up), and we will stop looking over your shoulder." If AT&T could have pulled all of this off when they were the phone company, there really would have been an new world order. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 13:58:26 EDT From: Jim Riddle Subject: Re: Call-Me Card The Call-Me Card has been available in the States for some time. I have four of them, one for each of my children who is old enough to use the phone. Not only is it usable ONLY to call home, it also ensures that they won't forget the number to call home (I know that sounds almost trivial, but there are situations in which anyone can forget anything). I told my daughter at college and my daughter on her own miles away just to respect the hours of billing and try to call daytime as little as possible. Since we are almost always around, they can get us without having to do a collect call or call and call back. Moreover, the advantage over collect is that we do get Reach Out America on these calls, as I have ROA applied to my calling card. Yeah, I could PROBABLY save $7 a month by doing collect calls and direct-dial backs, and even more if I used a free-message collect call (see other mail in the journal area) which I personally refuse to do, but I also find that my kids are more willing to call with the Call Me. Remembering how hard it was for my folks to get hold of me at these ages, I appreciate how much my kids DO call home. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 23:18:42 CDT Robert Michael Gutierrez wrote in volume 10, issue 669: | All [PIC change orders are] done on mag tape. Nameless and faceless. | No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC | concerning my PIC" will ever help anybody in the U.S. of A. All that is | done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that | a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered, ... but | the computer could [not] care less about those notes. It still will | merrily process the PIC change off the mag tape. But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first to see if they have received such a request from the customer. No, it shouldn't be necessary for telqi to protect customers from slamming IECs, but it says a lot about a telco to find out whose side it is on and whose word it takes over whose. It appears so far that one good indicator is the answer to this question: "Who was your corporate parent at the close of business on Friday, December 30, 1983?" 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: David Tamkin Subject: Re: CO's Split Across AC's Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 0:31:27 CDT Jack Winslade wrote in volume 10, issue 619: | 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. | [There] were cases where there are communities right on or near the | Nebraska - South Dakota border. 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. Ah, how different rural life is from urban life! Here in Chicago the prefixes dialable as either 312 or 708 are in CO's whose area coverage is not split, and prefixes in CO's whose coverage areas *are* split are dialable only as one area code or the other, not as both, and require eleven digits to be reached from the other side of the line and the correct area code to be reached from the rest of the world. For examples, (708) 591 [choke prefix], (708) 796 [customer name and address], and (708) 976 all are aliases for their area code 312 namesakes and are switched in the Canal East office. I believe that anyone outside area code 708 must dial these as 312; inside 708 dialing 1312+7D to reach them is forbidden, and only 7D will work. <(708) 950 might similarly be an alias for (312) 950, but it might be separate; one would never dial another area code's 950 anyway.> On the other hand, (708) 825 and (312) 825 are both wired from the Park Ridge CO, but neither is an alias for the other as a dialing convenience; they are two separate prefixes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some larger customers had identical numbers on (708) 825 and (312) 825 assigned to them, but both must be wired in or one must be forwarded to the other if they are to ring in the same place. And yes, to call between the two 825's one has to dial eleven digits. I imagine that rural CO's straddle an area code boundary only when they spread across a state line; an intrastate area code boundary in a rural area just about never would divide a CO's territory. 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: penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child Date: 24 Sep 90 11:16:03 GMT That gift idea is a little too scary for me. [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: Would you like to tell us why? It seems innocuous enough to me. How do you see the situation? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Clayton Webster Subject: 16 Buttons -- Not 12? Date: 24 Sep 90 07:37:32 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. An odd thought sprang upon me recently while talking to a friend. Do telephones actually use sixteen tones rather than just twelve normally available? I apologise if this has been brought up before, I just found this group. Clay Webster [Moderator's Note: Actually, the topic has come up frequently. Yes, telephones have sixteen tone combinations available. The four you do not normally see on your dial are frequently known as A,B,C, and D. They have a very limited application at this time. Perhaps some readers will be so kind as to send you recent messages from the Digest discussing these tones and their application. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 13:56:07 EDT From: Jim Riddle Subject: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded. They suggest that if someone else alleges to have a lower-cost plan, that you should get that in writing, but at the same time don't offer that their plan IS less. As a personal point, I believe that my AT&T ROA plan IS less than Sprint would be. Anyway, AT&T will gladly put in writing the whole summary of plan names and costs for you and will NOT compare it with anyone else. I prefer that approach as it offers a product on its merit and costs and leaves the comparison to the consumer. How often does a Honda dealer's claim sway your feelings about a Toyota anyway? Everyone in the echo is talking about AT&T and Sprint. Well, how about recognizing that the point of AT&T's ads MAY have been MCI who keep calling me at ridiculous hours and rant and rave about how much they're going to save me? MCI won't put ANYTHING in writing or even bother to advertise on TV any more; I conclude that that is because they don't want to get caught. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #673 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11878; 25 Sep 90 4:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20897; 25 Sep 90 2:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02709; 25 Sep 90 1:37 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 1:12:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #674 BCC: Message-ID: <9009250112.ac31313@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:12:24 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 674 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [David Tamkin] Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge [David Tamkin] McDonalds 900 Scam [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [James Watcher] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Tad Cook] Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Mark Harris] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ed Benyukhis] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Dave Levenson] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runways [John R. Covert] Re: Data vs Voice [Tom Olin] Script Files for Sys 85 [Mike Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 11:15:06 CDT Dave Levenson wrote in Volume 10, Issue 668: | A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks. His | number was 267-1234. | He forwarded his calls to 263-1234 in nearby Boonton, NJ. That number | was not in service at the time. | Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have | dialed, 263-1234, is not in service." Someone | called NJ Bell repair service. They investigated, and then canceled | call-forwarding on my friend's line. | In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled | his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again! To say that NJ Bell "canceled" your friend's call forwarding is ambiguous. Dave, do you mean that they did a 73# equivalent on his line to shut Call Forwarding off or do you mean that they removed the Call Forwarding feature from his account? I'm not trying to be picky here; I want to know just how far the telco went in stepping on a customer's own decisions. 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: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 22:58:56 CDT A surnameless Tim from Caltech wrote in volume 10, issue 670: | (I use [Around Town] even from my own home to avoid outrageously high | PacBell intra-lata long distance charges. I can't dial 10xxx because | PacBell blocks that for intra-lata calls. The absence of a surcharge | on the 950-1022 calls was a convenient work-around.) It might not be Pac*Bell blocking your attempts at intra-LATA 10XXX dialing. It might be MCI rejecting them. I can dial one of my lines from the other with 10XXX via US Sprint or Telecom*USA, but not via AT&T nor MCI. If my telco were setting the policy, then either all four carriers would connect the call or none would. As long as there is no surcharge, though, 950-1022 will do; too bad AT&T has no such alternative dial-up. I've also heard that MCI's Around Town (for 25c, not for free, but still not 80c) applies only for intra-LATA calls now; originally, at least so I _thought_, it was for any calls placed from near your home base, regardless of where in North America the call terminated. One of the other things I dislike about MCI Long Distance (in addition to slamming and to their promising to make corrections and updates and then never putting them in) is getting five conflicting answers from every three customer service reps to a straightforward question. 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: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: McDonalds 900 Scam Date: 23 Sep 90 05:41:09 GMT Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg I went into McDonalds today for dinner (or breakfast, depending you how you look at it), and found more sleaze than usual there. It seems that McDonalds has figured out how to legally run a sweepstakes for profit, and once again 900 telephone service is the key. You can get a "McMillions on NBC" sweepstakes ticket for free, no purchase necessary, at any participating McDonalds. Then you watch for the winning number on NBC during a specified time. Although the number on my ticket is nine digits, I suspect that there are only a few numbers actually given out for a given time period. Anyway, they don't tell you what you have won, and to claim your prize you have to call a 900 number (75 cents per call) within about 20 hours. There is no way to claim your prize other than to call this 900 number. There is another 900 number (also 75 cents per call) which you can call to find out what the winning number is. The scummiest part of this scam is that having the winning number does not even mean that you have won *anything* but rather that you are a *potential winner*. As far as I am concerned, that makes this setup a clearly illegal gambling enterprise, where for 75 cents you might win a prize. However, I am not a lawyer, and I am sure McDonalds has checked with their lawyers and decided it was legal, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have found a valid loophole in the law. To me, this kind of thing is much more offensive than porn-by-phone, and is further evidence that the 900 services should be eliminated because they provide much more opportunity for abuse than the benefit they provide is worth. Major Disclaimer: I haven't read the official rules posted inside McDonalds, only the rules on the ticket, and have, of course, made some guesses about what is going on. Maybe there will be only one ticket with the winning number, the prize will be announced along with the number, and you will definitely win it if you call the 900 number within the time period specified, and they are saying you are a *potential* winner when the prize number is announced becuase you won't win the prize if you don't call. Still, if that is the case, they shouldn't make prize winners pay to claim their prizes, and I would suspect that they are only doing it so that a) they can get names and addresses to mail people "Free soft drink" coupons (and later other advertizing), or b) cash in on all the people who get confused by the rules (e.g. have a prize number for Monday's drawing, which loses, but wins a millon dollars on Tuesday). Any way you slice it, I think it is scummy for prize winners to have to pay to claim their prize, and I doubt that McDonalds would be doing it unless they were going to make money on it (or at least cover all their promotional and administrative costs for the sweepstakes, which means they'll get sweepstakes junkies, who are typically from the lower income brackets, to give McDonalds millions in free advertising). Jeremy Grodberg jgro@lia.com ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 02:37:08 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number This brings to mind a funny story. I lived with two roommates, and we had two phone lines (voice/data, just like anybody :-). Somebody needed the number of the data line to update our newsfeed, since it was wasting lots fo time not being able to get through. As it so happened, I knew what the number was, but I happened not to be home at the time. Both numbers were unlisted. so, my roommate called the Pac*Tel operator and told them who he was (side note: for purposes of dealing with the phone company, we would all simply use the name on the bill, that of the third roommate, whether we were him or not ... once I was home when the installer came, and when he called the CO, he said "for all intents and purposes, I have Phil here..." anyway) and that he wanted to know the (unlisted) phone number. After being bounced up a couple levels of incompetence ("you'll have to talk to my manager about that..."), he was told that they would call him back to get his permission to give him his phone number. (They wondered why he didn't have any of the old bills laying around, but of course they'd all been tossed after being paid, not too bright.) Half an hour later, they called him back to get his permission. About forty minutes later, they call and tell him that they can't give him his own phone number, even though he is the customer, because it's UNLISTED! Shortly thereafter I arrived home, and peals of laughter could be heard as the story was related. I could not believe it. Anyway, I told him the number, and he told the admin of our newsfeed, and life was happy again since we could read the Digest :) ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 24 Sep 90 17:23:42 GMT In article <12383@accuvax.nwu.edu>, limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Hui Lin Lim) writes: > > I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking > > whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for > > the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it > require an ISDN switch etc? Nope. They do it on a standard digital switch. I can get it on a 5ESS in my area. What they do is assign two or more telephone numbers to one line ... and each number produces a distinctive ringing signal (like a double-ring for line two) when someone dials it. Actually, in an older form it is available on really old SXS switches from 40 years ago. It's called Party Line ringing. These call distribution devices for the home (like the AutoLine Plus from ITI in Endicott, NY at 800-333-0802) are typically used as a way of routing calls to a fax machine without the added expense of a second line. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Mark Harris Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions Date: 23 Sep 90 00:38:05 GMT Organization: Omhftre BBS kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated > than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if > such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and > W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit. I recently took a course in telephony taught by a person with many years experience working for Bell Canada, ATT, and BNR. He stated that, in general, overseas calls try to avoid using a satellite path for both E-W and W-E directions. The reason he gave was to avoid a long delay between, say, a question and a response. Mark Harris UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism Domain: harrism@omhftre.raidernet.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Benyukhis Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 24 Sep 90 14:34:20 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <12490@accuvax.nwu.edu>, stox@balr.com (Ken Stox) writes: > 2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your > phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through > the phone network. Digitization of speach does not imply packet switching. > 3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence. > When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer > sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over > that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc. Speech interpolation techniques are not prevelent in the land networks yet. Edward Benyukhis ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 24 Sep 90 14:50:57 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12503@accuvax.nwu.edu>, limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Hui Lin Lim) writes: > > (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country, > > in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different > > ring patterns). > Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it > require an ISDN switch etc? No, it doesn't require anything more than a plain, ordinary analog space-division switch such as the 1A-ESS, when it's offered here in NJ. It only requires that the telco equip its switch with a generic that provides the service, and that they tariff it or whatever is required by your state before a new service may be offered. Nothing special is required at the customer end. Just an ordinary telephone set equipped with a ringer. Different ring cadences are used to identify which of several phone numbers was dialed, when they all ring the same line. Just make sure that your tel set ringer is powered directly from the tel line, not by a key system, PBX, or other device which generates its own cadence. Also, watch out for answering machines that count rings. It may count the individual signaling elements of a short-long-short ring cadence as three rings. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 08:08:39 PDT From: "John R. Covert 24-Sep-1990 1105" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runways It is my understanding of the FARs that use of electronic equipment is prohibited from the time the aircraft begins to move under its own power until the cancellation of the VFR flight plan. I turn my phone off at push-back (since I can't necessarily tell for sure whether we're being pushed back by a tractor or under the craft's own power -- sure I can, but why bother) and turn the phone on after the aircraft has completed its braking and moved off the active runway. This is what airline pilots have told me is acceptable. Other airline employees have (on one occasion) grumbled about the phone after landing, but I tend to believe pilots rather than flight attendants. In Germany, you won't even be allowed on an aircraft with a cellular phone. On my last flight within Germany (with a cellular phone rented from Budget), I was not allowed to board the aircraft until the phone was placed within my luggage. The airline would not sell me insurance to cover the cost of the phone, and made me sign a document absolving them of financial responsibility for it. john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:11:22 EST From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Data vs Voice Please pardon my ignorance. I don't work in the telecom industry and I don't know many of the technical details. Several contributors to c.d.t. have discussed the method of transmission of data calls vs voice calls over the network. They have pointed out the higher bandwidth utilized by data calls and the problems of multiplexing such calls. I would like to better understand the nature of this multiplexing. Suppose that we have enough simultaneous voice calls to saturate the capacity of some portion of the network. As the other writers have mentioned, these voice calls are assumed to have a duty cycle of less than 100% - let's say 50%. What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%? Do they start losing parts of their conversations? Or do pieces merely get delayed? Or does something else happen? Tom Olin ...!uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600, Ext 638 PAR Technology Corp, 220 Seneca Tpke, New Hartford NY 13413 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 12:12 EST From: Mike Miller <0004330819@mcimail.com> Subject: Script Files For Sys 85 I want to write a script file for our Definity G2 that will do a station directory. While I know how to write a script file, the thing that puzzles me is how do you print the output of the script file to the printer or a file while the script is running. Unlike the System 75, the 85 can't do a station directory. I want to read the database in the switch and print the results on a file or printer. Thanks, Mike Miller St. James Hospital & Health Centers (708)756-6879 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #674 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12870; 25 Sep 90 5:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07275; 25 Sep 90 3:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20897; 25 Sep 90 2:42 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 1:46:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #675 BCC: Message-ID: <9009250146.ab08944@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:45:46 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 675 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: One Way Algorithm (was: ATM at Retailers) [Joe Konstan] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ronald T. Crocker] Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [George D. Nincehelser] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Larry W. Seals] Re: A Sprint Employee Comments on ATT and Divestiture [Jack Dominey] Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Len Rose] Re: Equal Access on College Campus? [Eric Dittman] Re: COCOTery [Dave Platt] Re: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages [Brent Capps] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:04:34 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: Re: One Way Algorithm (was: ATM at Retailers) In Telecom Digest #669 Steven King writes: > A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? Just like Unix does. Many (perhaps most) bank ATM systems do not store your PIN but instead only store the encrypted version of your PIN (the encryption scheme is designed to prevent many-to-one mappings). I recall that BayBanks in Boston had a problem when I was in college where only the first four digits of the PIN (which could be four to eight digits) were being used in the encrytion scheme. I don't know if they ever fixed it. For better information on these schemes in general, consult a reference on Unix passords, as this is a bit far out of Telecom territory. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: "Ronald T. Crocker" Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 24 Sep 90 16:13:30 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <12490@accuvax.nwu.edu> stox@balr.com (Ken Stox) writes: > 3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence. >When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer >sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over >that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc. > 4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet >for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not >allow any other packets through. From my experience (former Bell Labs), the type of multiplexing that you describe above (item 3) is not typical of any switches (digital or analog) that I am familiar with. Most telephony connections are "circuit-switched", i.e. equivalent to hooking a pair of wires between the two parties. The only "packet-switched" connections that I know of are those for ISDN packet data (B or D channel), and these are handled as "special cases," at least in the 5E. Voice is not packet data. It is not treated in a packet manner. Whatever happens to be on the voice channel is digitized (PCM), transmitted across digital carrier facilities (T1) to another switch, decoded to the equivalent analog signal, and played out of the receiver in the handset. No where in this loop is anything trying to figure out if the digitized voice signal represents "quiet". T1 is simply a multiplexed digital version of 24 analog trunks. Voice-grade lines are 64Kbps, T1 channels are [nominally] 64Kbps. Maybe if there were some compression done the case would be different, but I don't know of any of that either. Ron Crocker Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Division (708) 632-4752 [FAX: (708) 632-4430] ...!uunet!motcid!crocker ------------------------------ From: "George D. Nincehelser" Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! Reply-To: "George D. Nincehelser" Organization: Advanced Technology Laboratory - Southwestern Bell Telephone Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:16:10 GMT In article <12407@accuvax.nwu.edu> adams@swbatl.sbc.com (Tom Adams) writes: >The Voicephone *does* work well, with a wide variety of speakers. I >don't know about ambient noise, though I can bring one into the >computer room if someone *really* cares. The Voicephone is sometimes >folled by similar names, but does a good job of distinguishing >distinctive sounds spoken by different people. The Origin Voicephone 200 that I have doesn't seem to like changes in ambient noise levels. After I programmed the phone the first time, a Summa Four Switch was installed in the general area the Voicephone was located (the Summa Four sounds a lot like one of those noisy computers). The noise caused all kinds of problems. I re-programmed the phone from scratch (with the new background noise) and then things worked OK. Noise from people watching me demo the phone can also cause errors. (Our lab has poor acoustics.) BTW, it seems to work very well when people use the names that *I* train the system with. Other trainers don't have as much luck. Maybe I just have a generic voice. P.S. Tom - Don't you dare take my Voicephone ;-) George D. Nincehelser ¥ uunet!swbatl!george Southwestern Bell Telephone ¥ Phone: (314) 235-6544 Advanced Technology Laboratory ¥ Fax: (314) 235-5797 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 ¥ de asini umbra disceptare ------------------------------ From: "Larry W. Seals" Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:16:32 GMT An MCI rep called my missus while I was out and about and asked if we were interested in switching to their service to which she replied with an emphatic NO! The rep continued with my wife getting more irate by the second. She finally told this person that we had AT&T and were more than happy with the service (we do very little out of state calling, even less in-state LD) and got off the line. Upon arriving home she told me the story and I related to her the info I have gleaned here (thank you very much :-) ) about slamming. We called AT&T (glory be! They had a live person manning the 800 number at 8:30pm EST) and explained the situation. The AT&T rep verified that MCI could change our LD carrier without our consent and that we should contact our local telco. We called Southern Bell the next morning and had our account flagged so that no changes could be made without written permission. Nuff said. Or so I thought. When September's bill came in, it appeared that MCI had somehow beaten us to the punch :-( but AT&T (or Southern Bell) had switched us back (credit issued for a 6 day period in August) and had covered the switch back charge. So, whatever anyone else says, I'm sticking to AT&T for no other reason than the quality of the service (their rep even apologized for the MCI phone call!) and the promptness of their staff. ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Mon Sep 24 14:02:45 EDT 1990 Subject: Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About AT&T and Divestiture In V10#670, Steve Elias relays a message from a friend who works for Sprint. ---------- >I don't know what the deal is about ATT (sic) having a different 800 ># for intrastate but I think it goes back to the days of band 5 wats >type stuff. It does indeed go back to pre-divestiture days. Apparently our original tariffs didn't provide for the same 800 number covering in and out-of-state, but we started fixing that several years ago with an arrangement called Single Number Service. You still had to have different lines for each service. Later, when we introduced our Readyline service (800-on-a-POTS-line), we got the state Public Utility Commissions to allow intra-state service along with it. This year we've introduced MasterLine, which does the same thing with dedicated lines. There are still some companies using the older services, with separate 800 numbers. And yes, most of our competitors had similar services available well before AT&T did. >Again, the ATT guy was right [I was wrong -- eli]; It's not that ATT is >giving switching stuff away, it's giving away PBX and telephone equipment and >services. >1) Most important: ATT can combine long distance and equipment. >NOBODY ELSE CAN to that extent because nobody else owned a company >like Western Electric. For large customers looking for all in one >vendors (ie: tariff 12) this is where it makes a huge difference and >where the free "pops" in the equipment arena hurts (this is illegal by >the way, but is under the table). No wonder Mr. Elias' friend prefers to remain anonymous. This is an *extremely* serious accusation, and if the FCC believes it, AT&T will get slam-dunked quickly. Some people would probably go to jail. I work in the low end of the business market, where T1's are rare, and Tariff 12 is unimaginable. At this level, network services and equipment have separate salesforces. We can and do coordinate our sales efforts, but there is no way for us to create a "package deal" of any kind. The equipment folks have some discretion in their pricing, but it's independent of what we network people do. And our network prices are all in the tariffs - we can't write new ones for every $50,000/year customer. I'm not saying that the alleged bundling can't possibly occur. There are unscrupulous people in any large organization, AT&T included. But it is against the law, and it is against company policy, and I have honestly never heard even a rumour of such an arragement. >Also, the big argument about price ceilings and floors in the FCC had to do >with ATT lowering rates for tariff 12 type large customers to lock them in >and subsidizing this by raising residential rates. To some extent this is >exactly what has been done. To what extent? Our last price hike was for WATS services - didn't affect residental customers at all. (BTW, MCI and Sprint made raised their WATS-type prices within a month of our announcement.) Jack Dominey - AT&T Commercial Marketing - (800) 241-4285 - AT&TMail !jdominey These are my opinions, and not necessarily AT&T's. ------------------------------ From: Len Rose Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin Date: 24 Sep 90 18:40:56 GMT Organization: LSI Communications This isn't specifically telecom related,but it does relate to divestiture et al. I am extremely happy about one aspect of divestiture. Because of it, Unix System V was more easily obtained and AT&T 3B2 systems were made available to customers outside of AT&T. Perhaps we would all be using BSD if it never happened ... And maybe some aspects of my life would be different too :-) Len [Moderator's Note: The current issue of Computer Underground Digest has an article about Len Rose, and his difficulty in finding gainful employment due to his current legal difficulties. If you can help him out with this, contact him at the address shown above. For more information on his case, read the issue of CUD distributed Monday. For a subscription to CUD, write the Moderators: tk0jut2@niu.bitnet. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Re: Equal Access on College Campus? Date: 24 Sep 90 14:41:03 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility > Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the > telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning > CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently > students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they > have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same). Is > this strictly legal? I haven't checked to see whether 10XXX dialing is > permitted, but I would gather that it is not, given the state of > affairs. Can anything be done about this, considering that it is > indeed a campus, and as such the facilities are either privately owned > or in some other sort of legal grey area which exempts them from > having to provide Equal Access? My brother attends the University of Alabama and they have MCI. To save money he usually calls my parents collect, but when he calls me, he calls direct unless there's an emergency, because I don't accept any non-emergency calls from MCI or Sprint. If he does call direct, I just get the number he's at and call him back. He's tried 10XXX before without success. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. [Moderator's Note: A couple times I have inadvertently accepted collect calls which arrived via Sprint or MCI. Talk about a ripoff! The bill was unbelievable. When you get a collect call, *always* before accepting ask the operator 'who are you', and request time and charges afterward. Avoid surprises later on! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 10:11:10 PDT From: dplatt@coherent.com Subject: Re: COCOTery Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA In article <12453@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals > that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT > that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was > supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation. > Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most > restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow > 10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access > different carriers. > So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they > please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this > arena. I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone > and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the > purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act. Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with. I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue) which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call, 950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or rates. I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report). A couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories. The next week, most of the violations had been corrected ... $.20 for a local call, 950 works, 1-800 works, and the tonepad wasn't disabled after connection to 950. 10xxx still didn't work. I spoke with the folks at PacBell, and they said they'd need to give the COCOT owners a couple of weeks to reprogram the phone and get someone out to post instructions and rates. I don't think this has happened yet; I may call in a new complaint later this week if the phone is still not quite up to snuff. The two COCOTs outside the Long's in Mountain View seem to have been brought fully into compliance ... the rates are right, there seem to be no invalid dialing restrictions, and the necessary information is posted. So ... things are getting better ... but we aren't there yet. Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 09:16:27 PDT From: Brent Capps Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages In article <12390@accuvax.nwu.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > It seems those new elves I hired were actually fairies, and all my > reindeer are down with AIDS. I suggest that further comments of this nature are better suited to alt.bigot, alt.tasteless, or perhaps alt.jerk. Brent Capps Kentrox Ind, Inc. Portland, OR "Insert standard disclaimer here" (503) 643-1681 x325 uunet: ...!kentrox!ktxc5!brent [Moderator's Note: Thank you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #675 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05268; 26 Sep 90 2:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14227; 26 Sep 90 0:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22484; 25 Sep 90 23:50 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 23:41:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #676 BCC: Message-ID: <9009252341.ab19877@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Sep 90 23:41:01 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 676 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson [Information Week, via Thomas Lapp] Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Dave Johnston] Dialing From 215-377 [Carl Moore] AS/400 <-> X.400 ? [Daniel R. Kegel] AT&T --> Michigan Bell Billing Mix-up [Daniel Wynalda] Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI [Nobuya Higashiyama] Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Jeff Johnson] Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [PCHROMCZ@drew.bitnet] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 17:29:40 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson This is a summary/paraphrase of an article which appeared in {Information Week} in the 18 June 90 issue. It was the cover article in the magazine that week. Abstract: A question of privacy: Alana Shoars says she was fired from Epson when she questioned management about its reading of electronic messages between employees. She has filed suit. The case may be the first legal test of electronic mail privacy and it raises issues that have wide ramifications for corporate E-mail use. (From the front cover of the magazine). Alana Shoars, who was the electronic mail administrator for Epson America Inc., was fired from Epson for wanting to know why her supervisor was printing out employees' electronic mail messages. But the way it was done, and what happened as a result are the interesting parts. In March 1989, Shoars was hired on (for $36,000/year) as an office systems programmer and analyst. In her job, she was responsible for in-house electronic mail and their link to MCI Mail. However, in October, she came to believe that her supervisor was reading other employees' messages. When she questioned her supervisor about it, she was told that "it is none of your business" (despite the fact that e-mail administration *was* her business). Soon after asking him about it, she claims that Robert Hillseth, Epson's data communications manager, began to monitor *her* messages. According to the article, she was fired soon after an incident in which she sent an e-mail message to a colleague, Dick Flanagan, asking how to get a personal MCI Mail account so that she could work from home. Apparently, she had already asked this of Hillseth, who had denied her request. A few days later, on January 25, 1990, she was fired for "gross misconduct and insubordination". She was led out of the building by armed guards, and local police were waiting for her to frisk her for what they were told was an employee with a gun. The article leads off with the transcript of a call placed to the Torrance, CA police from an Epson mailroom employee: "Dispacher: Do you know what she was being terminated for? Stone: It is speculation... absenteeism and speculation of theft..." Dispacher: Okay. Stone: ...and erratic behavior. She said that she has a gun and that she was going to come back and wipe everybody out. Dispacher: Okay. All right. I'll send a unit out there." No gun was found, and Shoars was not charged (Epson won't discuss the police call incident). Shoars says that the bit with the police was meant to intimidate her. When others in the company heard about this, they were upset as well. Dick Flanagan, who was communications software manager in Santa Clara, quit in protest. He said that he was under the impression that e-mail was being monitored in Torrance, and they were in the process of resolving the issue when Alana was fired. Shoars challenged Epson to claim unemployment benefits and a judge ruled in her favor. "Her actions cannot be considered misconduct," according to the judge. Experts are saying that what she did next will be the first legal test of e-mail privacy. Shoars has filed wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy action against Epson, but Epson says that the charges are without merit and not related to the issue of e-mail privacy. According to Hillseth, he was checking the systems audit and error logs in order to track down a problem with message addressing. Alana responded that it is not necessary to read messages to do that. Michael Cavanagh, executive director of the Electronic Mail Association in Arlington, VA, comments, "What is the level of privacy that should be expected in the corporate environment?" His belief is that privacy laws about corporate paper mail and telephone conversations should extend to e-mail as well. Epson refuses comment on the situation while it is in litigation, but said that they have a policy to not monitor e-mail. They claim to only look at messages which are mis-directed or at the request of an employee (who might be out of the office, for example). Lee Cheaney, the former director of quality leadership within Epson (he was laid off in a corporate downsizing which removed 150 Epson employees), says that the company is trying to save their corporate a**, but that Shoars is in the right on this one. Shoars, however, has a long road ahead on this case. The privacy of e-mail has not been tested before, and most people just assume that monitoring of e-mail is just Not Done. Shoars believes that no one has the right to monitor e-mail messages. The problem, according to Walter Ulrich (a founding member of the Electronic Mail Association), is that monitoring of e-mail is so easy and so risk free. He feels that companies with good employee relations would not monitor e-mail any more than they would rifle through someone's desk. Those people who would are small-minded and cowardly, he says. Most experts agree with Ulrich on this point. Contrary to the picture that Epson painted, Alana Shoars is not a gun-toting crazy. She is 32 years old, has associate degrees in mathematics and chemistry as well as law enforcement and a B.S. in geology from Cleveland State University (1985). According to John Blank (of Cleveland State, and Alana's boss for a year after her graduation), she was very trustworthy. She had keys to his office and desk. She was also aware of the privacy of the PROFS system which ran at the university. At her next job, with a management consulting firm in L.A., the same thing applied: e-mail was private. Same with her next job at Cal State Long Beach, where she was an e-mail administrator. Her job at Epson included responsibility for supporting and training over 700 people on H-P's DeskManager messaging software and to learn how to access the newly installed MCImail gateway. While at Epson, e-mail usage nearly doubled from 48% to 80% use (due to the popularity of the MCI Mail link). Alana claims that e-mail is not the only type of communication that Epson tampers with. With the help of some others, she had several hundred buttons with the slogan "Bring Alana Back" made up and sent them to Epson employees by first class mail. However, they never made it past the Epson mail room, she claims. Flanagan (who was assisting Shoars) claims that Gary Le Monte (an Epson employee relations manager) had all of the envelopes intercepted in the mailroom, collected, picked up and destroyed. The Shoars suit also names Le Monte as a co-defendant. The final part of the article goes into some discussion of the law in the case of e-mail privacy. HR 2168 (the Consumers and Workers Privacy Act -- pending in committee) has been submitted to try to address this issue. But it is more intended for addressing monitoring of telephone conversations rather than e-mail. But legal experts say that it shouldn't matter the medium. So far only the telephone medium has been tested and the results were that monitoring is okay if there are legitimate business reasons, but as soon as it can be determined that the conversation is personal in nature, they are supposed to hand up immediately. The question is whether or not this can be done electronically. How do you "hang up" on an e-mail note? Some say it cannot be done, although others say it is very easy to do. An example was a case where a company's president thought that there might be abuse of the e-mail system. The MIS director was asked to investigate. So a program was written which extracted only the subject line and didn't collect info on author or destination. The consensus of many of the views expressed in the article was that regardless of the situation with Epson, companies should have their MIS departments come up with a corporate policy -- which is explictly stated -- in place *before* some problem comes up. tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) : 4398613@mcimail.com (work) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 90 08:30 +0000 From: Dave_JOHNSTON%01%SRJC@odie.santarosa.edu Subject: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface In , Tad Cook wrote: >I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of a >key telephone system and a two-way radio system. The operator of the I've had experience with a product from Selectone. This name should be familiar to anyone in the Two-Way world. They're a manufacturer of tone encoding and decoding products. I had a customer install one and its worked great. If need be I can get the model number etc. Basically, it just looked like a CO line to the key system. It is VOX operated with a delay so there is no need for footswitches etc. The user just picks up the phone and talks. It also can ring the phone. Its selectable to allow three microphone clicks, DTMF, or PL (Private Line for all you non-radio people ... a Motorola name for CTCSS sub- audible tone encoding) to trigger the unit to ring the phone. I highly recommend it. The customer is a radio station and they certainly put it through it's paces. Its been in service for several months without a hitch. Dave Johnston johnston@Odie.SantaRosa.EDU Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom Santa Rosa Junior College Phone: +1 707 527 4853 1501 Mendocino Ave, S.R., CA 95401 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 14:18:53 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Dialing From 215-377 Yesterday, I was able to get to a pay phone in Lehighton, Pa. (215-377), where the Jim Thorpe exchange (717-325) is a local call. 325 (this is NOT 325-xxxx) got "cannot be completed as dialed". 717-325-xxxx got message that it was now necessary to dial 1+717+ number; no change in billing. 1-717-325-xxxx -- message about 25 cent deposit. The bottom line is that yes, this local call from 215 area to 717 area does require 1+areacode. (Also required on local calls from 215 to NJ and to Delaware.) I also tried the following: 656-xxxx -- must dial a 1 in front of this call (I chose this because there is, barring very recent change, no 215-656, but 302-656 has been around for more than 30 years) 1-656-xxxx -- "cannot be completed as dialed". ------------------------------ From: "Daniel R. Kegel" Subject: AS/400 <-> X.400 ? Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 17:59:52 GMT My friend works on an AS/400 system in Stuttgart and would like to exchange E-mail with the world. The system has internal E-mail and a DATEX-P link (which they use to log in to remote AS/400 systems). Does anybody know how to get the AS/400 to send/receive E-mail to/from the outside world over a DATEX-P link? Please reply to dank@moc.jpl.nasa.gov. Thanks! p.s. Ich kann deutsch lesen, traue mich aber nicht, so etwas Technisches auf deutsch zu schreiben... ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T --> Michigan Bell Billing Mix-up Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:49:51 EDT From: Daniel Wynalda I smell a rat! Recently I got a notice in the mail from ATT that they will begin billing their long distance directly, rather than sending the billing through Michigan Bell. This seemed like a fair thing to me, so no problem. Last week I received my billing for the month of August. We normally run up a bill of $1200-1500. My Michigan Bell bill appeared normal - all calls for AT&T were summarized with appropriate discounts etc. Even the "cheap days" were discounted as well. Two days later I got a formal apology letter in the mail from Michigan Bell. They accidentally kept some of my AT&T calls in the billing system and it was "Michigan Bell's computer" that was in error. They requested I NOT pay the AT&T portion of the bill, and I should pay the AT&T bill I would get soon. Today I received my AT&T bill - Call for call the two bills are identical. Times are identical and I can trace the lines more easily. The Michigan calls are separated from the Interstate calls on the AT&T bill, but here's the rub. The AT&T bill is $100 HIGHER than the Michigan Bell AT&T summary. I called and questioned WHY THE BILLS DIFFER. Here's AT&T's explanation. 1. I am on the PRO WATS and PRO MICHIGAN plan. These plans are not eligible for the "reduced rate days" because I already get a discount. My first question is WHY NOT? 2. Each call cost SLIGHTLY MORE on the AT&T bill than on the Michigan Bell bill. Here explanation for this was "between the time my Michigan Bell bill was issued and the AT&T bill was issued the rates were increased by 2%". My question is -- why shouldn't I be billed for the rates that were in effect WHEN I PLACED THE CALL? Anyone who'd like to enlighten me and the Digest would do me a great favor. I am still awaiting a return call from AT&T regarding getting NOTICE OF CHANGES IN RATES. Let's see if they will put it in writing. Daniel Wynalda | (616) 866-1561 X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:danielw@wyn386.mi.org Wynalda Litho Inc. | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI 49341 ------------------------------ From: Nobuya Higashiyama Subject: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI Date: 24 Sep 90 20:16:54 GMT Reply-To: meaddata!nxh@uunet.uu.net Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH I found that there's a significant difference in call quality when calling Japan from Dayton, OH between AT&T and MCI. I used to use MCI, and I had to put up with frequent dropouts, noise, etc. This seemed to happen on just about every call I made. I switched to AT&T, and the dropouts disappeared completely and the noise is now quite tolerable. I'd like to know if anyone else has had the same experience, or if mine is an isolated case. Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama Mead Data Central, Dayton, OH meaddata!nxh@uunet.uu.net (temporary) or nxh@meaddata.com or uunet!meaddata!nxh ------------------------------ Subject: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 08:54:35 PDT From: Jeff Johnson Excerpted from the 9/21/90 {San Jose Mercury-News}: PHONE BILL'S WRONG NUMBER: $8.7 MILLION Chicago (AP) -- Cori Ward's mother got a little defensive when she received a phone bill for three weeks' service -- $8.7 million. "She says, 'I only called my sister,'" said Ward, who handles her elderly mother's bills. The bill from Illinois Bell should have read $87.98, not $8,709,800.33. Ward said she had a hard time explaining the mistake to the phone company. The error occurred when someone incorrectly typed a "correction" into the computer system, said Larry Cose, a Bell spokesman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:24 EDT From: Alec Subject: Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You >This offer is the one that says (paraphrasing) "We aren't sending this >offer to just anyone. We're sending it to you because we've analyzed >your phone bill and you can save money by buying Reach Out, etc." If they wanted us to "save money" they would just lower their rates rather than trying to sell us a "money saving plan." -*- Alec -*- PCHROMCZ@drunivac.bitnet PCHROMCZ@drunivac.drew.edu ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #676 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06543; 26 Sep 90 3:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18986; 26 Sep 90 1:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14227; 26 Sep 90 0:54 CDT Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 0:13:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #677 BCC: Message-ID: <9009260013.ab23280@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Sep 90 00:11:54 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 677 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATM at Retailers [Jim Budler] Re: What Is This World Coming To? [Tom Ace] Re: Slamming [Don Lynn] Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [Joe Konstan] Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Barton F. Bruce] Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge [Joe Konstan] Re: A Description of 976 Numbers [David E.A. Wilson] Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Benjamin Ellsworth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:26:12 GMT In article <12509@accuvax.nwu.edu> FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson) writes: >In a message of 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT, Steven King uunet.uu.net> writes: >>In article <12439@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. >>Kaufman) writes: >>>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is >>>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by >>>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees >>>the light of day. >>A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? >>A gigantic lookup table? > The bank doesn't need to "decode" it. The bank's computer knows >what your PIN is supposed to be. So, it codes it with the same >trap-door algorithm as the keypad did, and compares the two. FYI, >this is the same way that the Unix operating system encrypts passwords >with a one-way coding scheme, and stores them encoded. My guess is >that your bank's computer stores your PIN encoded, so it simply >compares the encoded incoming message with the encoded number stored >in the machine. I'm not even positive the bank always has your PIN in the first place. Last year I was one of the lucky people to receive a letter telling me that my Versateller card was being shut down, and that I would receive a new one in a few days. Concurrently my HomeBanking stopped also. This shutdown occurred because some people at one of the system providers broke their trust and obtained a significant block of records containing names, ATM numbers and PINs. By system providers I mean the companies like Plus System, or Star, who connect to the retail merchants and route request from the retail merchants to the bank ATM computer. The service providers are not necessarily banks, they are potentially just a wholesale transaction merchant. They do their thing for the $1 - $2 per transaction that they get paid for facilitating the transaction. So in the past some "merchant's employees", not a merchant, and actually not the retail merchant did exactly what was feared at the start of this thread. It took three seperate mailings to get my Versatel card back in action. 1. The notice of the action and its cause. 2. The new Versatel account number and card. 3. A form on which I selected a new PIN to replace my old one. My old PIN was time bombed so I was forced to select a new one. Now back to the encryption algorythm. There actually was a transposition pad on the form, so I encrypted my PIN, and sent the encrypted PIN, not the PIN itself back to the Bank. In addition, the PIN could now be variable length, and the length was not reflected in the encrypted PIN I sent back to the bank. So I'm not sure the bank ever has ny unencrypted PIN. Who knows, though? Only the bank, for sure. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:01:58 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: Re: What Is This World Coming To? In TELECOM Digest issue 666, judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice) writes: > ... What >is the point of putting bizzare messages on your answering machine to >mislead some hapless telemarketing representative, when as Patrick >states, A POLITE NO THANK YOU WILL DO! Hapless telemarketing executive? No one is forced to take such a job. Telemarketers know they are calling people they don't know, who might be asleep, ill, eating, or otherwise occupied and who would rather only be receiving calls from people they want to hear from. >What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to >strangers...? The same place it has come to where telemarketers have lost a sense of what is courteous. It is the rare telemarketer who has asked me a question like "is this a good time to talk?". If someone wants to sell me something, they can send me mail which I can peruse at leisure and give all the attention I determine it deserves. Also, the general topic of "talking to strangers" has little to do with the vast majority of unsolicited phone calls. Strangers call me to sell me things, to take surveys, to solicit donations, and (about once a month) to ask me to subscribe to the {San Francisco Chronicle}. Only once has a stranger ever called me for the purpose of initiating a friendly personal conversation -- and even though he called at 1 A.M., I talked to him for two hours. Tom Ace {sun,pyramid}!hoptoad!lever!ace ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 15:16:33 PDT From: DLynn.El_Segundo@xerox.com Subject: Re: Slamming Just so everyone doesn't get the idea that MCI is the only bad guy and AT&T is the good guy, I have to tell you my story... A few years ago, when my area first got a choice of long distance carrier on 1+ dialing, I signed up for Allnet. I have been reasonably happy with them since. However, AT&T apparently decided that all those people who left when given the choice couldn't still be happy, and so it appears that AT&T called all such people in my area some months after the choice was first given. They invited me back into the AT&T fold. I said, No Way (though I occasionally use them with 10ATT), and guess who slammed me. At least AT&T had the courtesy to send me a nice little note how happy they were to have me back just before getting Pac Tel (local carrier) to switch me. They got a nasty note back from me and they soon straightened it out without cost to me, but they (or their hired telemarketers) had slammed me. I have bad-experience stories on MCI, Allnet, General Tel, and Pac Tel too, but at least none of those slammed me. Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 15:58:55 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!) In TELECOM Digest #669, John Higdon writes: > A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check out > this plan or that plan involving long distance. Unfortunately, no IXCs > currently offer any calling discounts for traffic within California. > Since I make about two calls outside the state per month, no IXCs > interstate rates or packages interest me in any way. That is not presently true. While AT&T does not offer a "Reach Out California" plan (and I keep getting told by their reps that the PUC will approve it any month -- this has been for over two years), MCI's PrimeTime Plus *does* include in-state long distance calls in its 10.whatever cents per minute (one hour min) rate. An additional benefit is that this rate starts at 5pm weekdays. MCI is missing a bunch of other features (no calling card integration) and has the annoying habit of not allowing calls that would have been cheaper to be deselected from the bulk plan (except by 10XXX with some other carrier) but it is a pretty good savings for me (as my Wife has family in Sacramento and San Diego). Joe Konstan ------------------------------ Date: 24-SEP-1990 18:25:23.62 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine Hi- After reading Jeff's posting about SIT tones, I am beginning to wonder if they are actually used for anything, as in the case of signalling within the telephone network. The only time that I've noticed this myself is on COCOTs, as John Higdon (sp?) noted earlier. I still haven't managed to get a free call to my answering machine/voicemail, however, as once the COCOT hears the SIT tones it turns off the mouthpiece and the touch tone keypad. More commonly, at least in my area, the COCOTs just don't seem to care, and if you hang on the line for too long (maybe anything greater than 30 seconds) the COCOT will swallow the coin anyhow. (NOT that I make it a point to actually USE the things...!) But there are so many flavors of COCOT that I'm sure just about anything is possible with them. I've noticed that many Telco's (like independents and SNET) don't use the SIT tones at all on their recordings. SNET has even *eliminated* the SIT tones from their AIS (?- correct term) messages. (Isn't AIS what you hear after the SIT, ie, "The number you have reached, 5 5 5 - 1 2 1 2, is not in service. Please check the number, and dial your call again."). For a while, I think Illinois Bell was doing this as well, since I called O'Hare Airport a few times, (312-686 from what I recall), and got the AIS message w/o the SIT tones. Now, however, they seem to have gone back to using the SIT tones on AIS recordings. If the SIT tones have no function with the Telcos, then I don't see why the Telco would object to it being used, as per se, it does not do anything to their equipment. (Compared to leaving 2600Hz or MF tones or something which, assuming the answering machine could duplicate faithfully, may affect signalling equipment, etc. [Hmmm ... would it?]) If the SIT tones DO in fact cause Telco equipment to become "confused" or in some way hinder their operation, then perhaps the Telco would have a right to object. As an aside, Jeff mentioned that service with the Telco may be considered in contractual terms. I've always thought that it was more like "implied consent", ie, by using the service you agree to certain pre-arranged terms, which presumably are set forth by an administrative body, usually the state Public Utilities Commission. ("implied consent" is the same thing that states use to get out-of-state motorists to comply with their driving regulations, such as submission to DWI tests, etc.) I've never had to deal with this aspect of a Telco service "contract", but it is an interesting (albeit admittedly esoteric) question. Anyone ever have to deal with this area of the Telco service "contract"? (I'll summarize if anyone's interested ... and sorry to make this sound like misc.legal! :-) ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines Date: 24 Sep 90 18:58:35 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12480@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Roger Fajman writes: > I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1 > lines. I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on > T1/T3 technology. (I liked the course, by the way.) Now I would like > to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our > clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the AMI simply means Alternate Mark Inversion, and translated to english means that each one bit will have the opposite polarity of the preceeding one regardless of how many zero bits are in between. In fact if a plus follows a plus or a minus follows a minus, that is a bipolar violation and is an error in a pure AMI system. The dumb repeaters need to see some ones to keep their clock in step, so long strings of zeroes are to be avoided. All B8ZS does is replace a string of zeroes with a recognisable pattern providing some needed ones that could not be normal data, and that is itself balanced around zero (same number of plus 1s as minus 1s so there is no net DC component). This recognisable pattern is simply replaced with the equivalent number of zeroes at the far end of the span, but the repeaters see the ones they need to keep their clocks in sync. The special pattern B8ZS uses has two bipolar violations. There will be a plus followed by a plus and a minus followed by a minus. The B8ZS notes you found probably show that special string being substituted for eight zeroes. If you simply DON'T do that substitution, you have a vanilla AMI line. A vanilla AMI line can't guarantee ones density if all bits are to be available for your random use. If you rob a bit fron each DS0 you get your 56kb rate rather than the 64 you should have. Some T 1/2 fractional services provided by a LEC may give you clear channel on 'your' 12 DS0s, but they can simply ram ones on in 'their' 12 DS0s. Theirs will be every other time slot. You get the odd and they get the even, or vice-versa. That way there can NEVER be long strings of zeroes no matter what you send, and they can use most of their OLD hardware to provide you the service. YUK. Clear as mud, right? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:58:50 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge I received yet another story about this. First, I spent time wading through the training system to hear the "no surcharge" message. Then, unable to find an escape to a real person, called up a customer service person who said that: 1) The feature now costs 25 cents (I knew that) 2) The message should have been changed (wow!) 3) The local calling area is your home city (I know that isn't true, here in the San Francisco area it is approximately the free local calling area). 4) There is no surcharge IF you make a local call from within your local calling area!!!! This is the one I want to check out! I've often called home via MCI from BART stations (pre 25 cent surcharge) since the cost was 8-12 cents instead of 20. I stopped when the surcharge came in, but will try again and let the Digest know if this too turns out to be false. By the way, is this a legal thing for them to provide (and I imagine even promote)? Can long distance carriers provide alternative local service at discount rates through 950-xxxx??? Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976) Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 00:29:16 GMT msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >I understand that several other countries have the same concept, for >example, Britain's 0898-numbers are similar to our 900's, but I've >never heard of a simple name for it. Is there one? Do other >countries have two flavors like our 976 (local) and 900 (callable from >wide area)? Here in Australia we have three flavours which all go under the name "0055 - Information on the Double" or "Recorded Information Services". The three types are: Cost per minute Day Night Economy Metrowide (capital cities only) 0055 x9xxx 33c 22c 13c Statewide (intrastate only) 0055 x5xxx 39c 26c 15c Austwide 0055 xyxxx 57c 38c 23c y = 0-4,8 Provided you are on a modern exchange, 0055 calls will be a separate item on your bill. In addition, Dial-it Services (usually numbers of the form 11xxx) are charged at normal local call rates or STD rates if you dial another area code to get them. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:18:40 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child Mark Steiger wrote: > That gift idea is a little too scary for me. > [Moderator's Note: Would you like to tell us why? It seems innocuous > enough to me. How do you see the situation? PAT] Remember that the original posting said it was for > ... the little yuppie in your house ... Isn't that scary enough for you Pat? Or, do you want all of your children to grow up to be self absorbed icons of conspicuous consumption?! ;-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #677 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07407; 26 Sep 90 4:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26963; 26 Sep 90 3:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad18986; 26 Sep 90 1:58 CDT Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 1:33:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #678 BCC: Message-ID: <9009260133.ab05823@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Sep 90 01:32:49 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 678 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Joe Pace] Re: Local Calling Numbers [Matthew McGehrin] Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Tom Gray] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Michael Coleman] Re: Burglar Alarm Problems [Paul Colley] Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Jon Baker] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Chris Johnson] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Matthew McGehrin] Re: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number - In Australia [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Pace Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 00:27:41 GMT A friend and I came up with a method for letting the other know that he was on a local pay phone, and what the number was, by using a collect call with an odd name. It has worked very well, and now we have an easy way to refer to particular phones. Since all the numers in our area begin with 75, only the last five digits are important -- the goal is to form a name like: Paris H. Bulb Where the first and last letter of the first name and last name and the middle initial are significant. So, the number is encoded as "PSHBB" using the mapping: 1-9 -> A-I 1-9 -> J-T U-Z are left out... So, this name maps to 756-9822. The trick is to figure out a good name for your pay-phone, one that will be easy for the operator to repeat and will make sense if it's a little mispronounced. Joe Pace US Army Corps of Engineers pace@usace.mil Sacramento District JPPACE@UCDAVIS.BITNET 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 551-1133, FAX: 551-1100 ------------------------------ From: matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) Subject: Re: Local Calling Numbers Date: 25 Sep 90 00:56:22 GMT In-Reply-To: message from dave@westmark.westmark.com Dave, You made a comment about 'the list of local exchanges'. No, I did that myself. I typed in all the 'exchanges' they listed for me, I then had the computer sort it by 'exchange' that way, i say for instance, look thru the list for exchange '647' if 647 is not on my list, then it is not local? Do you get it? matt Arpa / DDN : pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin@nosc.mil UUCP : crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin Internet : matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.ctc.com From : (908) 469-0049, Free Access, 24 hours a day 300/1200/2400 baud, 'Pro-Graphics' ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor Date: 25 Sep 90 09:10:52 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <12415@accuvax.nwu.edu> limhl@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Hui Lin Lim) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 665, Message 3 of 9 >> I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking >> whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for >> the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country, >> in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different >> ring patterns). Well, here are excerpts from a recent article >> describing just such a device. >Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided? Does it >require an ISDN switch etc? This is just dressed up party line service. Different ringing codes are supplied for different directory number assigned to the same loop. The easiest switch to implement this service would be a step by step - just cross connect the connector outputs for the various directory numbers on the MDF. An ISDN switch requires an amazing amount of software to do the same function - ie assign multiple DN's to the same line circuit. Any switch sold in North America in the last 60 years will have the capability of providing party line service and this new new ultra-modern Distinctive Ringing Service (an extra cost item). ------------------------------ From: Michael Coleman Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 25 Sep 90 06:38:20 GMT stox@balr.com (Ken Stox) writes: > 4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet >for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not >allow any other packets through. This may be kind of a dumb solution, but why can't the phone company detect dead modem carrier and compress it the way they do with silence. I realize that modem silence isn't as simple as people silence, but there must be some way to do this. How about it? ------------------------------ From: pacolley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Colley) Subject: Re: Burglar Alarm Problems Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 20:13:55 GMT In article <12479@accuvax.nwu.edu> ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: >Walter Kemmerer describes receiving strange calls at five-minute >intervals that turned out to originate from a fried alarm system. >It is probably a bad idea to rely upon an alarm system that calls 911 >itself. In Toronto, the police will not respond to computer-generated >emergency calls because of the large number of false alarms. As I recall the announcement a couple of years ago, they announced that they would stop responding after a certain number of false alarms, something like two in a one-year interval, not that they wouldn't respond at all. Paul pacolley@violet.waterloo.edu or .ca [Moderator's Note: In Chicago, the Fire Department continues to respond to each automatic fire alarm -- false or not. However they send bills to companies which generate 'frequent' false alarms, to the tune of $550-575 per thirty minutes of service: responding, investigating and returning to Quarters. An expensive lesson, eh? Likewise, the police respond to automatic alarms. Our city officials said they have no intention of jeopardizing a citizen actually in distress because of a history of malfunctioning alarms at the same location. Instead, the offending alarm owner is sued or fined by the city after the second or third time around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines Date: 24 Sep 90 22:34:17 GMT Organization: gte In article <12480@accuvax.nwu.edu>, RAF@cu.nih.gov (Roger Fajman) writes: >I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1 >lines. Now I would like >to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our >clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the >course notes. AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not >defined. From ANSI T1.403-1989, Carrier-To-Customer Installation - DS1 Metallic Interface : AMI, Alternate Mark Inversion: A pseudoternary signal, conveying bindary digits, in which successive "ones" (marks, pulses) are of alternating, positive (+) and negative (-) polarity, equal in amplitude, and in which a "zero" (space, no pulse) is of zero amplitude. In AMI, one's density is maintained by converting a zero sample (i.e. eight consecutive zero-bits) into a '2'. Thus, clear-channel is not possible. This method of maintaining one's density is called Zero Code Suppression (ZCS). B8ZS: Bipolar with 8-Zero Substitution. A code in which eight consecutive "zeros" are replaced with the sequence 000+-0-+ if the preceding pulse was +, and with the sequence 000-+0+- if the preceding pulse was -, where + represents a positive pulse, - represents a negative pulse, and 0 represents no pulse. B8ZS basically inserts deliberate bi-polar violations when transmitting a zero; the far-end is expected to detect the deliberate BPV's and unencode them into the zero-sample without reporting an actual BPV. JB ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:27:56 GMT In article <12368@accuvax.nwu.edu> monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes: >The fact: The AT&T Universal Card is simply a bankcard (VISA or >Mastercard) with an AT&T credit card number embossed onto it. The >magnetic stripe on the back of the card indicates that the card is >only a bankcard and contains no information about the AT&T credit >card. Hence, when run though a payphone (or any other device that >reads the stripe), it is treated as a bankcard. >Apparently, modern credit card technology cannot yet deal with >magnetic stripes that contain "dual" identities, and so, some of the >potential convenience of a combined bankcard/phonecard is, for now, >lost. Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data. Then in all those glossy brochures they send to holders of the Universal Card (like me), they need only instruct the users to insert the card one way to use the VISA/MC capabilities, and the other way to use the AT&T phone card capabilities. I'm amazed that this incredibly simple and inexpensive solution escaped the designers of the card. Is there some other reason they didn't make the card completely dual purpose, I wonder? Does the ordinary AT&T phonecard give you a 10% discount on calls? ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 ------------------------------ From: matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Date: 25 Sep 90 00:56:11 GMT Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ... Reach Out and Touch someone's life, since you have their credit card number, (their bank since ATT uses only one bank), their phone number with a 'universal' calling card ... not bad huh?? matt Arpa / DDN : pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin@nosc.mil UUCP : crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin Internet : matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.ctc.com From : (908) 469-0049, Free Access, 24 hours a day 300/1200/2400 baud, 'Pro-Graphics' ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup Date: 25 Sep 90 16:33:22 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12478@accuvax.nwu.edu>, munnari!cs.uow.edu.au!david@ uunet.uu.net (David E A Wilson) writes: > A few months ago I mentioned that Telecom/OTC were now providing IDD > itemised bills to customers on new exchanges. My quarterly phone bill > arrived with my first itemised IDD call: > Date Time Place Number Min:Sec $ > 19 Jul 11:06pm USA Rhode Is 1401863xxxx 1:59 2.42 [my xx's] > So on a sample of one I guess OTC at least decodes the country and > area code to get the place. OTC is kind enough to give the state or province for calls to North America, but calls to London (4471+7D) are listed as 'United Kingdom', just the same as calls to Glasgow (4441+7D). I don't think it would have been much effort to add major UK cities with area codes of the form (0N1), but they did not bother. Odd, considering that the UK is in the top three destinations for Australian international calls. It should be noted that while automatic itemisation of IDD calls is now provided to everyone, it was available on request to many subscribers before this. > As for Trunk call itemisation, metropolitan residential customers will > start getting it in November, 1990 and all should have it by 1994. > Country residential customers should have it by 1997. This should give > us one of the most missed features of the US phone system. LD itemisation is also a feature available on request, depending on the local exchange (CO) equipment. The new AXE exchanges and the older ARE and ARF switches can itemise, but the old SxS monsters can't. I am on an AXE exchange and I have had LD itemisation for 18 months. My only beef is that TA (Telecom Australia) charges 6c per call for the itemisation, to a maximum of $5.00 per quarter. 1994 is the target for fully digital service in metropolitan Australia. TA seems to have a policy of witholding services from everyone if not everyone can have it. For example, Call Forwarding costs $480 /year for a rack mounted device to be installed, so that subscribers on SxS exchanges can also use it, Call Forwarding on an AXE exchange would cost TA nothing, but they still charge the $480. At least they allow me to have call waiting, conference and a crippled call forwarding. My call forwarding is crippled because I can only forward to exchanges in the same group as my own, ie I can't use an intergroup trunk for the forwarded call. At least I only pay $17 a year and no call charges for the forwarded calls. > We don't have COCOTs - although businesses can rent Telecom Gold > Phones and get the difference between the 22c charged to subscribers > and the 30c charged to pay phone users (per call unit). Correction needed here. A Gold Phone *is* a COCOT, but a regulated one. The old Redphone was leased from TA, but the replacement GoldPhone was available by purchase only from its introduction in 1983. Back then it cost $1300. Probably $2000 now. The owner of the GoldPhone has no say in the charge for using the phone. TA has also released a Bluephone COCOT which is a small low security phone for use in restaurants etc. > Telecom are going to introduce pre-purchase phone cards (looks similar > to the Japanese variety - punches a hole to show the remaining value > of the card). They hope this will reduce vandalism by reducing the > coins held in the phone. These are currently on trial in Geelong, Victoria. They claim that they are better than the European variety, but I could not get any real evidence out of the rep to back the claim. There are also EFTPOS telephones which accept ATM cards, and debit your savings account. These were developed as a joint venture with ANZ bank, and they are connected directly to that bank's computer, even for cards issued by other banks. Danny ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (In Australia) Date: 25 Sep 90 16:58:14 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12472@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > How can you find out the number of a given phone? I seem to recall > that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback. > What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line > you're calling on? Are there any numbers you can call that will tell > you your own number (like how (700)555-4141 tells you your LD > carrier)? > [Moderator's Note: In nearly every telephone exchange there is some > number which will read back the number of the phone placing the call. > There is no standardization to this; the numbers are different > everywhere, and change frequently. They are always non-pub, of course. In Australia the number to ring is 19123. This works from most private phones. Payphones give the message "No information to identify telephone number", while mobile phones give a seemingly endless string of 9's and 0's in no apparent order. Even COCOTS give the "No info" message, unless they are connected to the same line as the shop's own phone (a not uncommon practice in Oz). Dialling (0xx)19123, to a different area from the caller may give the correct number, or the congestion tone. I guess that it depends on whether the area you are calling has a digital link with the area you are calling from. Danny ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #678 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08117; 26 Sep 90 5:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23578; 26 Sep 90 4:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26963; 26 Sep 90 3:01 CDT Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 2:17:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #679 BCC: Message-ID: <9009260217.ab11442@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Sep 90 02:17:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 679 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Andrew Boardman] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [William Clare Stewart] Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Andrew Boardman] Telephone Ortsnetzkennzahlen [John R. Covert] Networked Scheduling System [Jeffery R. Wisnom] Information on Technical Training Needed [David M. Meyer] Phone Book Publishers [Samuel W. Ho] What Do You Do With a Worn-out Intercontiental Cable? [Donald Kimberlin] MCI VisaPhone [Joe Konstan] Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 [David Gurevich] Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Paul Mooney] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Boardman Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:48:32 EDT Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number >The most honest way to go about it would be to ask the person who owns >the phone, "what number is this?" PAT] The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the operator and ask "what number is this?" I've never had the request refused. (BTW, in the wake of recent talk about the book "The Phone Book," I wandered over to the business library and gave it a read. It was somewhat interesting, but extraordinarily anti-Bell biased. Its attitude was matched only by the extraordinary pro-Bell attitude of its shelf-mate, titled "The Rape of Ma Bell.") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 21:00:06 EDT From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator In article <12472@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > How can you find out the number of a given phone? I seem to recall > that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback. > What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line > you're calling on? Are there any numbers you can call that will tell > you your own number (like how (700)555-4141 tells you your LD I have to do this periodically when we've been reshuffling modems in our lab. The phrase "Telephone repair - what number am I calling from?" seems to work 99% of the time, assuming I can get the right code for the local operator (0, or 9-0, or *9-0, depending on whether the line is direct, or one of the Centrexes - haven't tried 00.) Thanks, Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ From: Andrew Boardman Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 20:02:52 EDT Subject: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System >A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible >with any standard telephone. Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS >interfaces aren't. I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering >machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines. No sweat. At least on the 9751, the standard interface for the proprietary sets is indeed standard; for POTS devices the interface card is a costly add-on. >What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model >that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user This is what makes it massively inappropriate (IMHO) for the frequent university setting. The student users enjoy none of the privs with all of the hassles. An illuminating paraphrase from Columbia University administration after their recent installation: "This system is perfect for our use. We realize that it raises manifold problems for the student population, but you guys are only here for four or five years; we *work* here." Makes me wonder who these universities are for, anyway... >but of course you then need a second (analog) line for your answering >machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX. Analog phones: the moden-day undergrad dream... Andrew Boardman amb@ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Telephone Ortsnetzkennzahlen Date: 25 Sep 90 03:10:48 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation OK, so if the DBP has (as reported in soc.culture.german) officially announced that the postal codes will be D-Wxxxx and D-Oxxxx until a complete reorganization in 1992, have they announced what is happening with the telephone system? One option is to just decide that Germany is fortunate to have two country codes and continue to use both. Another option would be to move all of East Germany's codes into the combined system by prefixing all of them with "3" (e.g. Dresden is now -51 and would become -351; Berlin might, like London, have two codes, -30 for the western part and -31 or -32 for the eastern part). This is possible because +49 currently only has -30 assigned, and no +37 codes begin with -0. East Berlin is currently -2. This would only work if there are no eight digit numbers in Dresden (and corresponding restrictions on other cities), since the CCITT recommends a maximum of twelve digits for an entire phone number counting the country code but not the international access code. john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 8:49:17 CET From: "Jeffery R. Wisnom" <1pc-doim@heidelberg-emh2.army.mil> Subject: Networked Scheduling System I would like to submit the following for comment by the Digest's readers. It is telecom related though it applies more to local Area networking communications. Our office is planning to install a campus-wide network scheduling system system (appointment calendar) for 200 users connected by an IBM Token Ring LAN. The individual micros are MS-DOS Zenith 286 machines. We have a UNISYS (Sperry) 5000/80 minicomputer running unix with an Eicon gateway to the Token Ring. I see three possible ways to implement this calendar system: (1) install the system on the unix machine and have users access it from the LAN through the gateway. (2) install the system on the 7 Token Ring LAN servers. (3) install the system on each PC and let organization-wide updates be transmitted over the LAN. Because I have had virtually no experience in selecting or installing networked scheduling systems for a whole organization I am not sure which of the above alternatives is even feasible. Some technical advice on the best way to implement such a system would be appreciated. As far as specific products, I have asked for information from the following vendors concerning PC/MS-DOS products with network compatibility: a. "TimeWise" sold by APC Technology Group b. "Who-What-When Enterprise" sold by Chronos Software Inc. c. "Office Works" sold by Data Access Corp. If anyone has good/bad/indifferent experience with these products or any additional products to suggest I would greatly appreciate it. Please post your comments to the Digest as I read it daily. Thanks in advance, Jeff Wisnom 1pc-doim@heidelberg-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ From: "David M. Meyer" Subject: Informaton on Technical Training Needed Organization: Deptartment of University Computing, University of Oregon, Date: 25 Sep 90 09:05:26 I'm looking for information on technical telephony training seminars, conferences, etc. I'd like to find training on topics like T1 (or high speed serial networks in general). Does anyone have any experience or recomendations? Thanks, David M. Meyer Voice: 503/346-4394 Network Systems Analyst Internet: meyer@mailhost.uoregon.edu Office of University Computing Bitnet: meyer@oregon University of Oregon UUCP: ...!uoregon!meyer 1225 Kincaid FAX: 503/346-3127 Eugene, OR 97403 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 11:15:46 CDT From: Samuel W Ho Subject: Phone Book Publishers I'm sure that many readers have noticed the proliferation of telephone books in recent years. I believe that it's not directly related to the Breakup, just that the LEC's are happily selling white pages information to whoever wants to pay 40c/listing or so. Anyhow, most major cities have at least a couple of third-party phone books. In Seattle, I noticed US West (the LEC), GTE (the other LEC; GTE buys some US West listings), the American Directory Company, Great Northwest Publishers, and assorted "neighborhood" directories. That all made sense, even if it did make for a lot of excess phone books for the recycle bin. In Champaign, Illinois, I notice that there is the Ameritech Pages Plus, which has the shape and thickness of an LEC book, and an Illini Country phone book from Old Heritage publishers, which has the letter-size shape and thinness characteristic of a third-party book. So far so good. But then, I notice that the Ameritech Pages Plus is published by Donnelly Directory, and Old Heritage, of Ballwin, MO, is a subsidiary of Ameritech. What's going on? Did Ameritech contract out their phone book, and then create some competition for their contractor? Is Ameritech trying to have its cake and eat it, too? Did Ameritech and Donnelly get into a fight? It's peculiar. Incidentally, Old Heritage's ad in their own Yellow pages claims advertising coverage in a dozen states, about half of which are in Ameritech country. Each of Donnelly and Old Heritage has a big ad in its own yellow pages and a tiny ad in the other's, all under "Advertising, Directory and Guide", for the curious. Our Chicago friends and Moderator might look around in the half-dozen phone books that they probably have lying around for any other Ameritech surprises. Insights on the soap-opera lives of telephone book publishers welcome. Sam Ho (ho@csrd.uiuc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 14:08 EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Subject: What Do You Do With a Worn-Out Intercontinental Cable? The following news release from AT&T didn't seem to make any visible general press. It may however have some interest for readers of the Digest: AT&T and Kokusai Denshin Denwa Ltd. (KDD), of Japan, will donate to the U.S. and Japanese scientific community a portion of TransPacific Cable-1, the first undersea cable system to span the Pacific. The 26-year-old cable, which carried up to 138 simultaneous telephone conversations, was replaced in April, 1989 by a fiber-optic cable with a capacity of 40,000 simultaneous calls. It continued to function as a backup system until last month. The retired copper cable will be given to the Earthquake Research Institute of the University of Tokyo and the Incorporated Research Institute for Seismology (IRIS) in the U.S. on November 1. The two groups will use the 2,656-kilometer cable system the backbone of an undersea observation system to monitor acoustical waves, geomagnetism, water pressure and temperature, speed of water current, and other seismological factors. The cable had formerly been used to handle telephone traffic between Japan and Guam. The system will make it possible for scientists to study the sea bed between the Philippine Plate and the Pacific Plate, where earthquakes occur frequently. It is expected to increase the accuracy of earthquake and tidal wave forecasting and to advance understanding of the inner structure of the earth. AT&T Bell Laboratories scientists, who developed the cable, predict that the vacuum tubes in the system's underwater amplifiers will, after 25 years of telecommunications life, now have a scientific lifetime of 50 or even hundreds of years. "This cable, which has served to bring the cultures and economies of the U.S. and Far East closer together, will continue to serve scientists in their search for fuller understanding of the scope and implications of the natural mysteries of our planet," said James Barrett, Deputy Director, AT&T International Communications Services. At its retirement last month, TransPacific Cable-1, state-of-the-art technology in 1964, was still functioning reliably as part of an overall system from California to Japan. Its replacement digital optical system was built by AT&T and KDD for their international information service needs as well as those of a consortium of 20 additional owners. # # # Not too shabby for a bunch of researchers to have their own private group of 138 voice channels between Guam and Japan, eh? I wonder if they will interconnect one so computer bulletin boards in Japan and Guam will be a local call from each other? (Forget that I even suggested the notion!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 13:13:59 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: MCI VisaPhone I just got off the phone with the MCI VisaPhone people and here is the scoop: 1. While they say you just use your Visa Card, you actually end up getting a card from them with your VISA number plus a four-digit PIN (I'm glad, more secure). 2. I don't have dialing instructions yet, but it seems to be a typical 950 access. 3. Charges appear on your Visa Bill--sign up now (1-800-627-3119) and receive a $5.00 credit on your second month's bill after usage starts. 4. Rates are milage insensitive: 18 cents per minute weekday 13 cents per minute evening 10 cents per minute night/weekend 5. Service charge is 70 cents per call. My analysis: It makes sense only when: 1. You are not home, and 2. You are calling an "expensive" area (cross country or intrastate long distance), and either 3a. You are not within an "Around Town" area, or 3b. You expect a long enough call (about 7-8 mins) to cover the 45 cent higher fees. Other Notes: Cannot be combined with travel award or other programs. Does not count towards volume discounts Open Questions: I don't have information about rates for international dialing (if it is available). If anyone wants this, or other information, I can find out, or some other Digest reader probably already knows. What I did: I signed up for the service (only plan to use it outside local area) predominantly for the $5.00 credit. I'll probably have my wife sign up too, just for good measure! Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: David Gurevich Subject: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 Date: 25 Sep 90 21:59:32 GMT Reply-To: David Gurevich Organization: DHL Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA It talks about the host-to-switch interfaces. Host being some computer system, switch - a PBX, CO Switch, etc. It seems that ANSII T1S1 subcommettee is trying to define a set of specs called the Switch - to - Computer API (SCAI). SCAI would provide common ground for any host to communicate to with any switch. This means that all kinds of applications may be developed on the host computer that would be able to add to the switch capability/ functionality. A sophisticated development environment, rich in labor-saving tools could be provided for this application development. Data network interfaces could be easily added. Is there a large market for this kind of a product? What would be common applications? Who would buy it? What are the potential regulatory problems? ------------------------------ From: Paul Mooney Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin Date: 24 Sep 90 15:10:16 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA > It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or > staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies. Last constitution of U.S.A. I read said that nationalization with compensation was allowed. Just thought I'd mention it. Paul Mooney [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, you are correct. Something very scary here in Chicago right now are the local politicians talking about stealing (only they prefer to call it 'municipalizing') the property of Commonwealth Edison, and taking over the electrical power system here as an agency of city government. I guess they need another patronage hive. Imagine! The people who brought us the Chicago schools, the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority -- now they want to take over the nuke plants. It is really bad news. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #679 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04111; 27 Sep 90 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27416; 27 Sep 90 2:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00241; 27 Sep 90 1:10 CDT Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 0:12:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #680 BCC: Message-ID: <9009270012.ab28229@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Sep 90 00:11:59 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 680 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Barrey Jewall] Re: McDonalds 900 Scam [Sanjay Hiranandani] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu] Re: Equal Access on College Campus? [S. M. Krieger] Re: McDonalds 900 Scam [Roy Smith] Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Kevin P. Kleinfelter] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ed Benyukhis] Re: Data vs Voice [Tim Oldham] Re: COCOTery [Tom Perrine] Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! (Info on One From Damark) [Dan Ross] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrey Jewall Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" Date: 25 Sep 90 07:33:42 GMT Reply-To: Barrey Jewall Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia In article <12449@accuvax.nwu.edu> JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > I wonder how some of the apologists for the shenanigans being >passed off as inside humor would react if the Postal Service did the >following to their mail: > - randomly opened it and made copies to pass around the > office and to other parties > - intentionally routed it to the wrong party occasionally > I don't see any difference between these and the activities of the >insiders, other than the media and the employer, and that doesn't >change the ethics of the situation. What you apparently don't recognize, is that this DOES occur within the hallowed halls of the US Post Office (I refuse to call it a Postal Service!) Carriers have time and again been caught with BAGS of opened and unopened mail, usually when another carrier drops by to check on a carrier who hasn't called in sick, but didn't show up either... Carriers have also been known to destroy mail, rather than bother delivering it. Anyway, the telco folk who did this, as are the mail carriers, are merely a small subset of the hardworking main force. If they all went home tomorrow, what would happen??? + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + ------------------------------ From: Sanjay Hiranandani Subject: Re: McDonalds 900 Scam Date: 25 Sep 90 13:41:50 GMT Reply-To: Sanjay Hiranandani Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center In article <12535@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeremy Grodberg writes: >You can get a "McMillions on NBC" sweepstakes ticket for free, no >purchase necessary, at any participating McDonalds. Then you watch >for the winning number on NBC during a specified time. Although the >number on my ticket is nine digits, I suspect that there are only a >few numbers actually given out for a given time period. Anyway, they >don't tell you what you have won, and to claim your prize you have to >call a 900 number (75 cents per call) within about 20 hours. There is >no way to claim your prize other than to call this 900 number. There >is another 900 number (also 75 cents per call) which you can call to >find out what the winning number is. What's even scummier is that the ticket said that the numbers would be announced between 8-8:30pm EDT on NBC. However my local TV station that carries NBC didn't showit till 11:30. When I turned on my TV at 8, I didn't see anything about it till 8:15 ... when I saw a commercial that said it would be announced at 11:00 pm. At 11 pm nothing happened except the 11 pm WICZ 40 newscast. between 11 and 11:30 nothing was even mentioned about it during the commercial breaks. At 11:30, they briefly announced the number. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 09:45:55 -0400 From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu In article <12412@accuvax.nwu.edu> I wrote: >Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from aircraft? (The Moderator appended a note pointing out the potential risks from IF-leakage interfering with the aircraft's avionics.) I see that I wasn't quite clear in my question. There are two distinct problems arising from cellular use in aircraft: 1. Interference with the aircraft avionics, due to IF leakage. (this is an *aviation* problem). 2. Overloading the cellular radio network, by accessing multiple cells. (this is a *telecom* problem). The first problem is addressed by FAA regulation 91.21 (formerly 91.19), which prohibits the operation of most portable electronic equipment on commercial flights, unless the airline has determined that the equipment will not interfere with the aircraft avionics. The second problem is what I was asking about. Suppose someone is flying high over Los Angeles, in circumstances where FAR 91.21 does not apply. If he uses his cellular phone, it might activate hundreds of cells and confuse the network. It would be impolite for him to make a cellular call from there, but would it be illegal? If so, how? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 10:02:21 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Equal Access on College Campus? Organization: Summit NJ > Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the > telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning > CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently > students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they > have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same). At West Chester University, where my daughter is enrolled, there is also no 1+ calling allowed. The phone system does support 10XXX LD carrier selection (i.e., after "9" to get an outside line, 10XXX can be dialed before the "0"; I have verified that it ends up going to the selected LD company). What I did to help ease the cost is to sign up for Reach Out America and paid the extra $2.00 for the calling card option. As I understand the way it works, the time we can make the cheapest interstate calls is pushed back to 10 pm, and any interstate calling card call made during the plan's hours do not include the 80 cents surcharge. All I asked my daughter to do was to find out if her friends' parents won't mind their phones ringing at 10:10 pm. (Disclaimer: what I am posting about Reach Out America is based solely on my being an AT&T customer. Although I am an employee of AT&T, my work is entirely with UNIX System V development and does not involve any of the company's long distance telephone business). Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 13:46:28 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: McDonalds 900 Scam Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Jeremy Grodberg writes: > It seems that McDonalds has figured out how to legally run a sweepstakes > for profit, and once again 900 telephone service is the key. [...] > Any way you slice it, I think it is scummy for prize winners to have > to pay to claim their prize, and I doubt that McDonalds would be doing > it unless they were going to make money on it [...] I have no love of 900 numbers either, and I agree that charging $0.75 for the phone call to see if you've won is pretty low, but Jeremy isn't being entirely fair in his condemnation. My ticket back goes on to say: "net proceeds, if any, donated to Ronald McDonald Children's Charities (registered trademark)". It's still pretty low, but at least they aren't just pocketing the money. Then again, if they are soliciting money for their charity fund, why be so underhanded about it? Maybe that's not 100% fair either, since they do have plainly marked donation boxes on every counter, but I digress. The thing that gets me is the "if any" part. Obviously they are charging back against net profits some sort of costs. The cost of running the phone line? Printing the tickets? Advertising costs? 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 ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) Date: 25 Sep 90 16:27:43 GMT Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA motcid!king@uunet.uu.net (Steven King) writes: >In article <12439@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. >Kaufman) writes: >>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant. The PIN is >>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by >>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself. The plaintext PIN never sees >>the light of day. >A one way algorithm? Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you? >A gigantic lookup table? One way encryption is very common. You store the encrypted PIN on the card. Then when the user enters his PIN, it is encrypted using the same algorithm. If the two encrypted PINs match, the original PINs were the same. Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347 {emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!kevin ------------------------------ From: Ed Benyukhis Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 25 Sep 90 17:39:20 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <12545@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!crocker@uunet.uu.net (Ronald T. Crocker) writes: > From my experience (former Bell Labs), the type of multiplexing that > you describe above (item 3) is not typical of any switches (digital or > analog) that I am familiar with. Most telephony connections are > "circuit-switched", i.e. equivalent to hooking a pair of wires between > the two parties. The only "packet-switched" connections that I know > of are those for ISDN packet data (B or D channel), and these are > handled as "special cases," at least in the 5E. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree that most connections are circuit-switched and that most calls are POTS type calls. But what is so special about B/D channel packet switching??? > Voice is not packet data. It is not treated in a packet manner. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It could be. VSCS (FAA) at Bell Labs is implementing just that i.e. Packatizing voice for air traffic controllers communications. Voice packatezation perhaps warrants some discussion/explanation by someone more familiar with the process. How about it Pat???? > Whatever happens to be on the voice channel is digitized (PCM), > transmitted across digital carrier facilities (T1) to another switch, > decoded to the equivalent analog signal, and played out of the > receiver in the handset. No where in this loop is anything trying to > figure out if the digitized voice signal represents "quiet". T1 is > simply a multiplexed digital version of 24 analog trunks. Voice-grade ^^^^^^^^^^^ > lines are 64Kbps, T1 channels are [nominally] 64Kbps. Maybe if there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When you say Voice Grade Lines, are you referring to th subscriber loops?? And if you are, than, how about BRI connection piping 144Kbps over a wire pair. And even this can be increased by playing tricks with the loading coils. Also, depending on the Super Frame format, you might not even get a 64Kbps clear channel on the T1 either. In general, these are long and, at times, complex subject matters. Regards, Ed Benyukhis, Motorola, CID. (708)632-4658 ------------------------------ From: Tim Oldham Subject: Re: Data vs Voice Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:35:14 GMT In article <12542@accuvax.nwu.edu> adiron!tro@uunet.uu.net (Tom Olin) writes: >What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in >some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%? Do they start >losing parts of their conversations? Or do pieces merely get delayed? >Or does something else happen? As another contributor has said, the technique of zero compression isn't prevalent on land nets. It is, I believe, prevalent on satellite links; certainly sometimes I get completely dead patches on a noisy phone line, which I have always contributed to zero compression. So, am I correct in this assumption? If I'm right, what happens when satellite virtual-circuits *do* start using more bandwidth. For example, Take a satellite which has 64Kbps bandwidth (it's a pretty crap satellite :-): time t: I'm on the line to the US from the UK, and it I'm on a zero-compressed satellite link. I'm put on hold, and keep my mouth shut. No bandwidth being used. time t+1: Another person decides to call the US. Whatever-it-is decides that statistically (assuming a 50% zero compression winnitude), and currently actually, there is sufficient bandwidth to route the call via the satellite. It does so, and the 2 parties are connected. They start talking. No problem; plenty of bandwidth, as I'm still not saying anything. time t+2: All four parties start screaming blue murder at each other. We need 128Kbps bandwidth. Which the satellite can't deliver. What happens? Is it just a case of the designers allowing for statistically very low data loss, given that the numbers are very much bigger for a typical satellite? If not, what techniques are used? Yeah, I work for a telecomms company, but I'm not directly involved in telecomms. Just interested. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo Living in interesting times. ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: COCOTery Date: 25 Sep 90 20:13:23 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article <12551@accuvax.nwu.edu> dplatt@coherent.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 675, Message 8 of 9 >Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with. >I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue) >which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call, >950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or >rates. >I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator >tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report). A >couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a >laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the >coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories. Perhaps our fearless Moderator can persuade Dave to post the text (or Postscript?) for the "Out of Order" signs? What are the possible violation categories? I have run into many COCOTS that are missing local-call cost and LD carrier info here in the San Diego area, and I would like to leave an appropriate sign behind, to protect the TELECOM-impaired :-) 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 [Moderator's Note: I hope the original poster will share his program with us here for printing up those labels. Then, let's get busy using them as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan Ross Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! (Info on One From Damark) Date: 25 Sep 90 20:24:38 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept somebody writes: >>>[There is no manufacturer identified, the text calls the phone >>>"Voiceprint", the illustration shows the name "Voicephone".] I posted earlier, and went and checked my [given-away] Damark catalog. The phone in the Damark catalog (which is NOT necessarily the one originally mentioned) did NOT have an answering machine. It was a Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone. It was $49.95, which is a bunch less than the Mobil catalog price (especially for just the "fun" part of the phone). Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #680 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04251; 27 Sep 90 4:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27416; 27 Sep 90 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00241; 27 Sep 90 1:10 CDT Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 0:36:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #681 BCC: Message-ID: <9009270036.ab00498@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Sep 90 00:36:01 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 681 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 976 Numbers [Bob Goudreau] Re: USEnet PC Access [Gary Becker] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Nickolas Landsberg] Re: Data vs Voice [Jerry Durand] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Jon Baker] Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Jon Baker] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Chris Sowden] Re: Call-Me Card [Dave Levenson] Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [Dave Levenson] Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [Greg Onufer] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [John Nagle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 14:22:19 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: 976 Numbers Reply-To: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <12510@accuvax.nwu.edu>, msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > The world, or at least North America, got by just fine until a few > years ago without these numbers; their creation seems to have merely > opened up a new niche for sleazy businesses, in particular, the sort > who want to trick people into paying their charges. And for thousands of years, the world, or at least North America, got by just fine without telephones either. Their invention opened the way for many abuses: obscene calls, boiler-room scams, costly long distance calls made by houseguests, etc. Should we do away with the telephone because of these problems? 900 and 976 numbers do in fact serve a useful purpose. The fact that they continue to thrive should be some indication that many consumers *want* the ability to connect to information and specialty services. You and I may both think that it's silly to pay good money to vote for a video on MTV, or get your fortune read, or engage in erotic conversation with a phone-sex service -- but it's not *our* money at stake. People are also free to "waste" their money on _People_ or _Playboy_ magazines, or on a state lottery ticket, or by attending a football game or a concert -- but it's *their* money in all cases, and for them to decide whether the expenditure was worthwhile. That's freedom. With it comes the responsibility for one's own actions. > Another thing I've heard of them being used for, although > not locally, is information-by-telephone services that formerly were > free. It is for these reasons that I find myself feeling that we > would be better off without these numbers at all. Just because some information providers (e.g., newspaper sports lines, etc.) were generous enough in the past to provide information at no charge does not mean that they should be required to forever forgo charging a fee. Now, switching gears completely and referring to an earlier part of the article: > Now, in some parts of North America, there is a clear distinction > between local calls (which are free or cheap) and long-distance calls > (which cost more), and this distinction does not follow area code > boundaries. In some areas they are dialed in different ways so that > you can't incur a long-distance charge by accident. (This distinction > in dialing is doomed over the coming years, for reasons related to the > exhaustion of available numbers.) > In the Bell Canada service area (i.e. most of Ontario and Quebec plus > some of the Northwest Terrritories), there is such a distinction in > dialing, and calls to 976-numbers are always dialed as long distance. > This remains true even though actual long-distance calls to > 976-numbers are now to be blocked. What I would ideally like to see (not that this has a snowball's chance of ever happening :-)) is a completely different approach to the dialing of toll-free and extra-cost calls. Currently, the NANP just reserves various area codes and prefixes (800, 900, 976, and so on) for these purposes. But what if the "flavor" of a call could be indicated by a special prefix, similar to the way that non-default LD carriers can be selected with 10XXX? Here's how it would work: First, we need to invent a new class of prefixes. Anything will do, as long as it's not already in use. How about 110? Anyone know of any custom-calling features that already use this? Next, we define two of these prefixes: 1108: means that the call is to be billed to the callee (similar to 800 numbers now) 1109: means that the call will be billed to the caller, and at a special rate above and beyond the charges that would normally apply to calls to this number (similar to 900 and 976 numbers now) Under this scheme, I could do several things with my existing number: 1) Keep my line as is. To reach me, you dial 248-6231, or 1-919-248-6231, or +1-919-248-6231, depending on where you're calling from. You pay the charges, if any. 2) Set up a toll-free number. You can still reach me as above (and pay for the call yourself), but in part or all of the NANP (whatever regions I sign up for), you can dial 1108-1-919-248-6231 and get *me* to pay for the call. (Local callers could also dial 1108-248-6231.) Note that since the "real" telephone number is embedded in the toll-free number, international callers won't have any trouble finding out my number, although they must pay for the call themselves. 3) Set up a pay-service number. If you try to reach me at either of the two numbers above, you'll receive a rejection method. The only way to reach me is 1109-1-919-248-6231 (or locally, 1109-248-6231). You pay (big!) for the call. In essence, there would be three ways to dial any number: normal charges (no prefix), toll-free (1108 prefix), and premium service (1109 prefix). I could tell the telco which combination of these methods should be enabled (though of course I'd be foolish to enable normal or toll-free if I had premium turned on). Any thoughts on the practicality of this wild daydream? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:28:16 EDT From: Gary Becker Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access John, Read the comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest newsgroups. An article describing USEnet PC Access is posted or requested every few weeks. I seem to recall articles that said public domain USEnet PC software is available from SIMTEL. Please ask on that newsgroup about access to SIMTEL. I've not personally retrieved software from the SIMTEL archives, and so am not the best person to go to for advice on it. If you find cheap, but not public domain, uucp software I'd be interested in the source. My employer has a policy, to prevent viruses, of no use of public domain software on company PC's. Gary Becker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:33:23 EDT From: Nickolas Landsberg Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Regarding the slamming situation: Whenever I get called by , I reply that I am an AT&T employee. It gets them off the line FAST, and I've never been slammed (yet). Of course, in my case it's the truth. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, Nick Landsberg ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Data vs Voice Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 12:38:56 PDT In Message-ID: <12542@accuvax.nwu.edu> adiron!tro@uunet.uu.net (Tom Olin) writes: >Please pardon my ignorance. I don't work in the telecom industry and >I don't know many of the technical details. I work in the industry and still don't know a lot of the details. 8-) >They have pointed out the higher bandwidth utilized by data calls >and the problems of multiplexing such calls. >What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in >some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%? It just occurred to me that all of us people sitting on hold all day should have the lowest duty cycle except for the constant music-on-hold that raises our duty cycle up to that of the dreaded modems. Does that mean there should be higher rates for companies that put people on hold for a large percentage of their calls? 8-) Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com, 408 356-3886 ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: 25 Sep 90 15:58:21 GMT Organization: gte In article <12517@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes > that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are > telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first > to see if they have received such a request from the customer. Name one. From everything I've read/heard/experienced, no telco verifies the allegedly-required written record except in cases of customer complaint. And, MCI rarely produces the written record, claiming that they 'sent the card out to the customer for signature, but never got it back'. ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines Date: 25 Sep 90 15:48:01 GMT Organization: gte In article <12512@accuvax.nwu.edu>, oleary@noc.sura.net (dave o'leary) writes: > However, not all phone company equipment does B8ZS, although this > seems to be getting a lot better. I guess this is why they say that It should gradually become more widespread. B8ZS is the preferred long-term method of providing Clear Channel. > B8ZS is preferable. Our C&P sales guy told us that B8ZS costs more > and that we need to run ESF to use it (which I didn't understand...if > anyone can explain that one I'd appreciate it). Of course B8ZS will cost more, because it requires special equipment to handle it. There is no particular reason why B8ZS can not be used in an SF format T1. If they only support B8ZS