Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18411; 1 Oct 90 11:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01230; 1 Oct 90 9:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06346; 1 Oct 90 8:25 CDT Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 8:14:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #701 BCC: Message-ID: <9010010814.ab09399@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Oct 90 08:14:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 701 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Touch-Tone Dial Layout History [Larry Lippman] Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) [Macy Hallock] No Speak Postscript [Jeff Sicherman] Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill [Jim Youll] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Mark Steiger] Re: Calling Card Questions [Jim Budler] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [U5434122] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin] 9600 Baud on US Sprint [Mark Steiger] Re: Which Came First? [Per G|tterup] Things I Get in the Mail [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History Date: 1 Oct 90 00:35:28 EDT (Mon) From: Larry Lippman In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that > the number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, ... > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? During the late 1950's Bell Labs conducted extensive human factors studies to ascertain the "ideal" key layout for a pusbutton dial. The result was the touch-tone dial layout that we have today. For those who may be interested, the study was published in the "Bell System Technical Journal" in July, 1960, and entitled: "Human Factors Engineering Studies of the Design and Use of Puhbutton Telephone Sets". There were five basic designs tested, having the following test results: 1. "Reverse Adding Machine" 1 2 3 Keying time: 6.01 sec 4 5 6 % errors: 2.5 % 7 8 9 Votes for: 3rd 0 Votes against: 2nd 2. "Two Horizontal Rows" Keying time: 6.17 sec 1 2 3 4 5 % errors: 2.3 % 6 7 8 9 0 Votes for: 1st (most) Votes against: 4th 3. "Two Vertical Rows" 1 2 Keying time: 6.12 sec 3 4 % errors: 1.3 % 5 6 Votes for: 5th (least) 7 8 Votes against: 1st (most) 9 0 4. "Telephone Dial" 3 2 Keying time: 5.90 sec 4 1 % errors: 2.0 % 5 Votes for: 2nd 6 Votes against: 5th (least) 7 0 8 9 5. "Speedometer" 5 6 Keying time: 5.97 sec 4 7 % errors: 3.0 % 3 8 Votes for: 4th 2 9 Votes against: 3rd 1 0 Note that the chosen key layout was a *compromise*. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:59 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <12745@accuvax.nwu.edu>: [Discussion of bandwidth vs. channel use in progress...] >Not necessarily, BUT there should be a HUGE, financially crippling >charge for those companies that employ the usual muzak-on-hold, Well, actually there is. ASCAP charges $100/yr per trunk for licensing rebroadcast or use of recorded material (as of the last time I checked). Muzak and other music services do charge for the use of their material. (Although I suspect a lot of it gets hooked up by installers without regard to contractual obligations....) Last I heard, Muzak charged around $5/mo per trunk in this area. You can get recorrded music with the correct clearances for this use, but few people are willing to pay the freight. The actual number of locations paying proper license fees for the use of music on hold is rather low, I suspect. Considering ASCAP's often agressive enforcement activity in metropolitan areas in the past, this is a bit surprising. And yes, I have run into them...but for music over paging systems, not MOH (Music On Hold). And I do warn my customers ... not all listen, though. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy [Moderator's Note: Did any of you see Bob Green's column in the Sunday papers over the weekend? He said some legal beagles are hitting on some guy in a small town in Indiana (population 800) because the guy has a radio in his store and listens to the music on the radio in-between customers. They are trying to sue him for big $$. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 18:54:34 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: No Speak Postscript For those of us without access to Postscript printer, could some kind soul with a postscript emulator (Goscript, etc.) or similar capability print this to a file with a HP LASERJET II target printer (and maybe a few other common graphics modes like IBM Proprinter, Epson), ZIP and uuencode it for transport across the net. Since this is going to be a bit map, to avoid clogging the net for only a few interested parties, perhaps PAT could put the resulting encoded files in the archives and just print an announcement. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill Date: 1 Oct 90 01:45:22 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. My last phone bill listed long distance calls to Cleveland, etc. but also showed calls to : WASZ 2 MD PHSZ 43 PA These calls were handled by an aggregator. Any idea why the funny destination names, and what they mean? Thanks... Jim ------------------------------ From: penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 1 Oct 90 04:16:05 GMT I tried this 800 number abd it told me I was dialing from 218-555-5555!!! Definitely something wrong there. Mark 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: When this was an active thread, the consensus was that in the event the system can NOT tell what number you are calling from for some reason, it gives 555-5555 as a default value. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 03:54:14 GMT In article <12784@accuvax.nwu.edu> lmg@mtqub.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes: >I have a few telephone calling card questions: >Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the >different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ >Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it >depend on where one is calling?) The Universal card has an automatic 10% discount. If you can use it. My wife encountered a situation calling from a PBX of unknown long distance service. When she tried 10288 she got a response "You're already using AT&T" No call completion. When she tried without the 10288, and "operator" came on the line. He was talking in the background to someone and paying partial attention to my wife. Doesn't sound like an AT&T operator to me. When she gave the calling number and PIN he said "Too many numbers". My feeling is that she reached another long distance service and their programming didn't know about the invalid phone number scheme used for the calling card number on the Universal Card. I might get her to try probing the PBX with 700-555-4141, and see what we get, but I'm not hopeful if they're blocking 10288 with such a recording. Any comments. She tried twice, and she's sure she used the correct 14 digits both times. My slightly divergent comments. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Date: 1 Oct 90 15:06:33 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12651@accuvax.nwu.edu>, radius!lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) writes: > My AT&T MasterCard contains a MasterCard number, and an AT&T Long > Distance Calling Card number, but the four digit PIN is _NOT_ there. > In addition, as has been previously discussed (I think), the AT&T LD # > is NOT my home phone number. It is a completely different ten-digit > number. To avoid obtaining *more* long numbers, would it not be possible to register one's Mastercard 16 digit number with AT&T or whoever, and let them send you a special AT&T PIN for using that card with AT&T. Only one number on the card; only one stripe necessary. If AT&T 1were co-ordinated with the bank, you could even have just one PIN. Danny [Moderator's Note: This of course is the technique used by MCI, in effect making any existing VISA/MC into an extension of the MCI calling card. AT&T was different though -- they definitly wanted to expand out of the phone business and into the credit card business, which is why they chose to issue their own plastic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 22:36:27 CDT I had written this: DWT> No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent DWT> telco let a long distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco DWT> stymied a slamming attempt on me." Robert Woodhead replied in volume 10, issue 698: RJW> Is it just paranoid moi, or do other people notice that since the RJW> slamming company is the one who gets the bad PR, not the local RJW> utility, and since we all know who the BOC's don't particulary love RJW> Sprint, MCI, et al, it follows that the BOC's have no incentive to RJW> check before they allow a slam? No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business stays with AT&T straight through. Speaking of the word *them*, what does the readership think of MCI's new round of get-back-at-AT&T commercials? They really go for the jugular, don't they? 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: 9600 Baud on US Sprint Date: 1 Oct 90 11:36:02 GMT I am looking at getting a US Robotics HST modem and I had heard that the bandwiths that sprint allows for its calls sometimes block out 9600 baud calls so that it falls back to a lower baud. Is this true, or just rumor? Thanks, Mark [ 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: When we were on this thread some time ago, there were numerous comments and questions about Sprint's ability to handle data at very high speeds. John Higdon was one of the main contributors to that thread. Perhaps on seeing this he will write you and briefly share his experiences. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Per G|tterup Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 12:39:13 GMT johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: => When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the => number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding => machines, i.e., => 1 2 3 7 8 9 => 4 5 6 on the phone, vs. 4 5 6 on calculators. => 7 8 9 1 2 3 => 0 0 [ stuff deleted ] => How are the number pads arranged on European or Asian phones? The [ other questions deleted ] Well, on phones here in Denmark (which is in Europe) we use a layout like the calculator shown above, i.e.: 7 8 9 4 5 6 1 2 3 0 * # On some phones we have those extra four buttons, although they're not used for anything here. Then the layout is: 7 8 9 A 4 5 6 B 1 2 3 C 0 * # D BTW, since 1979 it has been impossible to get rotary phones here, and only those remaining from before that time still uses pulse dialing. Touch tone is (of course) free. I hope you can use that info. Per Gotterup Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.) University of Copenhagen, Denmark Internet: ballerup@freja.diku.dk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 7:52:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Things I Get in the Mail The past couple weeks have been so busy here, I have neglected to tell you about some of the telecom-related stuff which has come to me at my post office box in recent weeks. Let me catch up on a little of that today: The folks at Telecommunications Research Associates are presenting more seminars. "Understanding Broadband" New York, November 15-16 Chicago, November 28-29 San Fransisco, December 5-6 "Emerging Technologies in Telecommunications" Boston, October 18-19 San Fransisco, October 23-24 Registration for both is $995. Lack of space prevents going into detail about their programs, but they are generally well-prepared and worthwhile. For information and registration: 1-800-TRA-ISDN (800-872-4736) in the USA 1-913-437-2000 From elsewhere. ----------------------------- A conference and exposition called "Messaging 90" is being held over a three day period November 6-8 at the New York Hilton, in New York City. This program will cover a wide range of voice mail, electronic mail and fax stuff. For information and registration: IPC Trade Shows, Inc. PO Box 42375 Houston, TX 77242 or call - 1-800-888-2188 Information and Registration 1-713-974-6637 From outside the USA More recent items in my mail will be presented here in a day or two as time and space permit. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #701 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08021; 2 Oct 90 4:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11891; 2 Oct 90 2:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19770; 2 Oct 90 1:31 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 1:11:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #702 BCC: Message-ID: <9010020111.ab18421@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:11:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 702 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [Herman Silbiger] Re: Which Came First? [Gabe Wiener] Re: Which Came First? [Jim Breen] Re: Which Came First? [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Which Came First? [Julian Macassey] Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary [Jack Bonn] Re: Calling Card Questions [Carl Moore] Re: Calling Card Questions [Dave Levenson] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Derek Andrew] Re: 9600 Baud on US Sprint [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Andy Rabagliati] Last Laugh! Re: MCI As Slamming King [Gordon Burditt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 19:19:36 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12837@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > Regarding why touch-tone pads put the "1" on the top left while adding > machines put the "7" on the top left ... In 1983, I was doing > historical research and I read that the early Touch-Tone pads WERE > configured like adding machine pads -- but the early electronic > switching systems couldn't handle rapid entry of DTMF, and people > proficient with adding machines could literally "outdo" the switch. > Bell engineers flipped the keypad to slow these people down. If this > is indeed true, will some loyal TC reader please tell me where I found > that reference? I've often wanted to quote this vignette but can > never remember just where I read it. An interesting story, but not true. Research was done on button order at (AT&T) Bell Laboratories in the late fifties by Dick Deininger and others, and published in the Bell System Technical Journal. They found that the 1-2-3 order was best, i.e. faster with fewer errors, for people who were not familiar with keypads. In those days, of course, calculators were mechanical and used by a relatively small part of the population. Individuals who were used to the 7-8-9 order of course were faster on that pattern. Since most of the population of prospective telephone keypad users were not trained on 7-8-9, the 1-2-3 pattern was chosen. Similar studies were performed in Sweden, with similar results. It was because of these human factor studies that CCITT standardized on the now familiar 1-2-3 pattern. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 03:15:30 GMT In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: >When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the >number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding >machines >Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key >adders came first). If Bell had arranged the keys in calculator order, the alphabet on the keys wouldn't have followed in any logical way. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:24:14 GMT In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the > number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, i.e., > 1 2 3 7 8 9 > 4 5 6 on the phone, vs. 4 5 6 on calculators. > 7 8 9 1 2 3 > 0 0 > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key > adders came first). As I have heard it, the ISO standard for numeric keypads antedated the CCITT recommendation. When CCITT "studied" the keypad layout, AT&T representatives refused point-blank to compromise, and CCITT (cravenly) gave in. All praise to those (few) PTTs which held out and adopted the ISO version. An anecdote. When Telecom Autralia introduced Touchfones in the mid 1970s, the Standards Association of Australia (our equivalent of ANSI) had a gentle correspondence battle with Telecom, trying to convince it to use the ISO layout. In its replies to SAA, Telecom stated that "overseas studies" had shown that there was no confusion when the two layouts were used simultaneously on a desk, e.g. on a phone and a VDU keyboard. Quite coincidently, Telecom was insisting that all the VDUs it purchased had the numeric keypads reversed to the CCITT format. The reason stated in the documentation was "to prevent confusion with telephone keypads." Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose. Jim Breen (ジム) (jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au) Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 ------------------------------ From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 1 Oct 90 14:33:29 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In <12835@accuvax.nwu.edu> roeber@portia.caltech.edu (Roeber, Frederick) writes: >The pushbutton phones I've seen in France had keypads arranged the >same way as American phones. Amazingly enough, in England too we have managed to arrange our buttons the same way as America - amazing eh? Adam Ashby ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya +1 708 632 3876 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 1 Oct 90 15:00:50 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the > number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, i.e., > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key > adders came first). Every time I lecture on the subject of phones and there is a bean counter in the audience I get asked this question. Usually from the perspective that the calculator model ("Ten Key") is perfect and the AT&T model is an aberration. My response, which is often not well received by the bean counters, is below. I am not sure how true it is, some or all of it may be folklore. I have gleaned it over the years. I believe there is a Bell paper on this, but have never located it. Back in the old days when AT&T was designing Touch Tone, they had to lay out the dial. This was late fifties, early sixties. I am not sure when the 10 key adding machine replaced the comptometer, but it was in this era. This was an era before the $5.00 calculator. This was when electric adding machines were expensive, large, noisy, beasts and only used by bean counters. So AT&T needed a number pad. They really had no model, so they ran experiments to determine which was the easiest to use with the least errors. The clear winner was the 2X5 (Two columns, five rows) as below: 12 34 56 78 90 The problem with the 2X5 is that it doesn't fit too well on the front panel of a standard desk phone. The next winner was the 3X4 which is what most of the world uses today: 123 456 789 0 Now obviously if the same research was being done today, the ubiquitousness of the electronic calculator would have an influence. This brings me to the next comment. > How are the number pads Arranged on European or Asian phones? In Denmark, the Touch Tone pads are "Upside down". This is mainly because the Danes moved into Touch Tone in the late seventies and by that time everyone had a calculator and expected that number pads had 789 in the top row. But Denmark is the only exception I know of. In many countries, Touch Tone is still being introduced. > Do the keyboards > of today's operator consoles have the same number pads as us mortals > (7 8 9 on the top), or do they have 1 2 3 on the top row, as on > phones? Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder what the number pad was like. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: Jack Bonn Subject: Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary Reply-To: jack@swlabs.uucp Organization: Software Labs, Ltd. Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:18:12 GMT In article <12700@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >On a side note, it is interesting to note that the CCITT has developed >standards for a programming language called CHILL (CCITT High Level >Language). I don't know if this is actually in use anywhere, or if >there have been any CHILL compilers/interpreters developed. It's an >interesting language, what with various set operators developed, and >the typical 'if', 'for' and 'while' looping mechanisms. Interesting is certainly an understatement regarding CHILL. It has all the strengths and weaknesses of a strongly typed language and reminds me more than a little of what I have seen of ADA. [I wish I had $1 for every time the difference between synmode and newmode had to be explained to newcomers.] Yes, it was used. Here in Connecticut at ITT's Telecommunication Technology Center (TTC, later called ATC) a compiler was developed for CHILL in the late 70's and early 80's. The System 12 digital switch was developed in CHILL both here and in Europe. The development platform was the IBM mainframe and the target was the 8086. Rumor has it that the System 12 development cost approx. $1.2 billion (where billion == one thousand million). The French firm Alcatel bought ITT out of the telecommunications business (although ITT retained some piece of the action) and moved the operation out of the US. But I am sure System 12 is still written in CHILL. Siemans in Florida has used CHILL. I had also heard that AG in Phoenix, Arizona is/was also using CHILL. Jack Bonn, KC1UH, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP) jack@kc1uh (TCP/IP) kc1uh@wb1cqo (AX.25) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 10:12:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions I believe your telephone calling card number WILL be updated automatically if your area code is changed. (I believe there was a note to this effect regarding people in what is now 708 in Illinois.) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions Date: 1 Oct 90 13:46:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12784@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lmg@mtqub.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes: > If a calling card has your full phone number on it, will the number > automatically change if your areacode changes? I live in the part of > the 201 area that becomes 908 next year. New calling cards will be issued to central NJ customers after the first of the year, containing your new area code. For now, I have found that I can enter my calling card number with either 201 or 908, the same number, and the same PIN. Both are acceptable, whether I'm using MCI or AT&T. > Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the > different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ > Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it > depend on where one is calling?) You don't really have that choice. NJ Bell's card only works for intra-LATA calls, while the AT&T card only works for inter-LATA calls. The Universal Card is less expensive than AT&T's regular Calling Card for inter-LATA calls, due to the 10% discount. MCI's card is less expensive than the Universal Card unless the call lasts long enough that the higher surcharge for AT&T is offset by the lower per-minute rate that results from the disocunt. Is that perfectly clear? 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: Derek Andrew Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 17:30:35 GMT From article <12825@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook): > I have tried this a few times with US West, and they NEVER give me the > number. > However, they are quite cooperative when asked to ring back the line > to test ringers. So ... request that they call you back to test your ringer, then when you answer the phone, ask what number they are calling please. Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0 [Moderator's Note: It doesn't always work that way. The smart operators sometimes ask, 'what number should I call you back at?' :) and all you can suggest at that point is why doesn't she just keep the circuit up and ring back manually, i.e. post-call payphone coin collection time. She may or may not accept your advice. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 9600 Baud on US Sprint Date: 1 Oct 90 11:53:07 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) writes: > I am looking at getting a US Robotics HST modem and I had heard that > the bandwiths that sprint allows for its calls sometimes block out > 9600 baud calls so that it falls back to a lower baud. Is this true, > or just rumor? I send all of my night Southern California uucp traffic over Sprint using Telebit modems. There began to be major throughput problems and even conversation failures. Many calls to Sprint finally netted a response that the company was now using CCITT-compliant echo suppression and that they were aware that certain Telebit firmware releases did not adequately cause the echo suppressors to drop off. After reading my many postings on the topic, Telebit contacted me and offered to upgrade my modems. They sent new firmware and since then there has been no more trouble of any kind on Sprint. To my knowledge, the HST modems never had any problems; this was strictly a Telebit Trailblazer+ phenomenon. In no case is this a bandwidth problem, or even a "slippage" problem. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 04:42:40 GMT In article <12861@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >would it not be possible to >register one's Mastercard 16 digit number with AT&T or whoever, and >let them send you a special AT&T PIN for using that card with AT&T. When I asked for my PIN, I asked for 1XXX, and it was refused. I asked why - I was told that if it starts with a 1 it looks like the start of 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. So I couldn't make it the same as my bank PIN. Cheers, Andy. EMAIL: rabagliatia@isnet.inmos.COM ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Last Laugh! Re: MCI As Slamming King Date: 1 Oct 90 01:11:56 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >>From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king. I have, Aren't you forgetting something? * "slamming" is a service mark of MCI ** "slamming king" is a service mark of MCI Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #702 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10157; 2 Oct 90 6:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15926; 2 Oct 90 4:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20370; 2 Oct 90 3:37 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 2:40:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #703 BCC: Message-ID: <9010020240.ab16836@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Oct 90 02:39:58 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 703 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment" [Lawrence M. Geary] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Gord Deinstadt] Re: CODOTery [Jack Bonn] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Jeffrey Bier] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Mark Brader] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Phil Weinberg] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Jon Krueger] Re: Vanity Phone Numbers [Bob Yasi] Re: Why Did I Reach "215 A Y"? [Carl Moore] Re: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service [Jeff Carroll] COCOT Mailing List [Bill Berbenich] Joking Reference to 1+ [Carl Moore] Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Steve Elias] 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 13:03:11 EDT From: Lawrence M Geary Subject: Re: Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment" Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12847@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) writes: (Paraphrased): > On Sunday, September 30, agreement was reached by the federal budget > negotiators on a proposed new budget, including a variety of program > cuts and new/increased taxes. There is one brand new tax in the > agreement that might be of particular importance to readers of this > forum. This is a new "luxury" tax of 10% ... [that] will apply on > items such as "luxury cars", furs, jewelry, and *electronic equipment*. "Electronic equipment" over $1000. This has the perverse effect of taxing some basic items like an $1100 stereo receiver while exempting some "high end" items like $900 phono cartridges. I suppose systems could be decomposed into individual parts < $1000 each to get around the tax. God help us if Congress starts to add exemptions and qualifications to this one. > It might be worthwhile for everyone who is involved in the purchase of > "electronic equipment" to carefully track the details of this > significant new proposed tax as they come forth, and make their > opinions known to their House/Senate members. This budget agreement bears all the marks of an unstoppable freight train. Congress takes a hatchet to the tax code and federal programs with no eye toward fairness, consistency or good sense, but with one goal in mind: squeeze as much additional money out of the taxpayers as possible. They then brand anyone who objects to these wholesale random changes as "nit pickers and naysayers". (And that was the Republicans!) They aren't interested in logical arguments, and they are braced for the onslaught of protests from every affected group. Make those electronic purchases you've been putting off *now*. Larry Geary: 74017.3065@compuserve.com | Turn out a light for Astronomy lmg@mtqub.att.com | ------------------------------ From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: Sun, 30 Sep 1990 11:23:34 -0400 Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study >Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on >digital trunks. It would involve demodulation of the signal, >transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal >reaches the other end. This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz >DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz >for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth. We already *have* a system that does this; in Canada it's called Datapac. But instead of developing it into something worthwhile it's been allowed to rot. I wish someone would explain why they haven't added public-dial fax ports to Datapac. Or revised the tariffs so it was actually competitive with high-speed modems at LD rates. Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP ------------------------------ From: jack@swlabs.uucp Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 05:38:17 -0400 Subject: Re: CODOTery In article <12625@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tom Perrine writes: >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 :-) The CODOT at the campground in Lansing Michigan indicated that the money was to be deposited after the call was completed. It gave the local call cost as $.25 in the written Spanish directions but verbally gave the cost as $.20 in English. I told a Cuban friend that it was the $.05 Hispanic surcharge. :-) Jack Bonn, KC1UH, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP) jack@kc1uh (TCP/IP) kc1uh@wb1cqo (AX.25) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 17:55:18 PDT From: Jeffrey Bier Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Do these COCOTs that people are complaining about allow calls to 911? If so, I'd like to suggest that the text of the 'out of order' labels posted in comp.dcom.telecom be modified, to indicate this. It would sure be shame if some poor soul in an life-threatening situation mistakenly thought that he couldn't dial 911 on one of these phones, and died trying to find another phone. Jeff Bier ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Tue, 2 Oct 1990 01:07:36 -0400 Please pretend for a moment that you are an ordinary person. Some emergency comes up -- a traffic accident, say, or someone collapses with a heart attack, and you are a bystander. You spot a payphone nearby and head over there to dial 911, or whatever your local emergency number is. On the phone you see the following sticker covering the coin slot: > OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates > California PUC rules and regulations ... > [several lines of checklist deleted] Seconds may count. You never heard of programmable telephones and PUC rules and regulations, but you know what OUT OF ORDER means. What do you do? I would like to say, "to prevent a possible tragedy, please amend the wording of these stickers to clarify, at the top, that emergency calls still work". But I don't know that this would always be true. Are there some COCOTs out there that demand coins on emergency calls? If so, then the act of blocking the coin slot could itself be lethal. Please be careful. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Weinberg SPS Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 1 Oct 90 21:13:04 GMT Reply-To: Phil Weinberg SPS Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303 In article <12637@accuvax.nwu.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle (John Nagle) writes: > It's time to lobby for some standardized way to find out your own >phone number. With Caller ID, the other end can find out; it's >annoying that you can't. It would be especially valuable if it were I once tried to find out the number of an unidentified (untagged) pair by calling the phone company (Pac Tel) and requesting them to tell me what number I was calling from. I was refused this information, and when I asked to speak to a supervisor to explain why, the supervisor gave me a story that it was to prevent "people" from tapping into someone else's line, finding out what the number is, and using the other person's service as their own. I was also told that this "illegal" use of other peoples' lines was very prevalent among bookies and number writers. I had to pay for a service call for a PacTel expert to come out, dial the mysterious number to get the recording back as to what my number was, and write it down on a tag (it took him about 4 minutes total - a slow writer). I agree with John Nagle that in this age of more and more gizmos using the telephone lines it becomes more and more convenient, if not necessary, for one to be able to identify a pair of unfamiliar wires. << Usual Disclaimer >> Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395 UUCP: {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil Telephone: +1 408-991-7385 [Moderator's Note: There is something you should remember: When you were on that 'unidentified pair of wires' they (the wires) *might* have been someone else's service. They might have picked up the phone and heard on you on there. Then what? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:49:47 GMT In article <12488@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >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. ... I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name "cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom "cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does anyone know? henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 18:29:46 PDT Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? From: Jon Krueger From article <12521@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1. fidonet.org (Jim Riddle): > AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost > than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded. Correct. They have, however, made claims about quality. For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, most specifically including quantifying how much faster. They promised to do so. They have not done so. It would appear that this ox gets gored on both sides (it will not last the night). Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Vanity Phone Numbers Date: 2 Oct 90 03:18:09 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA It's worse in California. The nice thing about $38 is that it's a one-time charge ... you guessed it; Pac Bell charges recurring monthly fees to Keep a vanity number. Bob Yazz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 10:23:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why Did I Reach "215 A Y"? I can only guess that, in your attempted 800 call from Detroit to San Jose, you reached a switching center in southeastern Pennsylvania. It used to be that you could determine what area code you were reaching for an 800 number, at least when dialed from out of state. Perhaps you reached a wrong number and the wrong number happened to be in the Philadelphia area. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service Date: 1 Oct 90 20:19:25 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12506@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >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. Uh, oh... Before you know it, the Chicago Board of Trade would be dealing in telephone call futures. I can hear the radio announcer now reading the daily financial report: "Long distance, NY to LA, for June delivery; closing at $0.10/min, down $0.02". Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: COCOT Mailing List Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 9:55:54 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu With all the constant (negative) traffic on Telecom Digest concerning COCOTs, I wondered if there is a COCOT mailing list running somewhere. If I had the resources here, I would start one (but alas, I don't). Anyone else know of a COCOT list or want to start one? Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: There is none going that I know of, and I don't think it is really necessary right now. Of course, if someone wants to do it, fine. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 15:28:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Joking Reference to 1+ Dick Bartley (last Saturday night, Sept. 29), on his apparently- syndicated oldies radio program, gave the request number as 1-800-LIVE-GOLD (yes, 1-800-LIVE-GOL, without the trailing D, is fine), and said (jokingly) to leave off the leading 1 if it is not required in your area. What could have prompted the remark about the leading 1? (I had the program tuned in on WQSR-FM, 105.7, Baltimore.) There are few areas left which do not require the leading 1 in front of a 10-digit long distance number. This is true for at least part of the following areas (I don't know of others): 408 in California 516, 914 in New York (Use of N0X/N1X prefixes sharply reduced this list.) [Moderator's Note: Carl, it was probably all very innocent. He's a radio host, not a telecom enthusiast, or telecom weirdo, as Steve Elias would say. What would he know about the obligatory one plus? He was probably reading from a script someone at the radio station gave him about how to receive phone calls, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: Mon, 01 Oct 90 15:51:46 -0400 From: Steve Elias What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few rings, and then a busy signal. Surely this will confuse people who call me and don't know that I'm a telecom weirdo... But what about the "supervision" return codes to the originating CO? If someone calls long distance and this happens, will they get billed because of the change in cadence from ringing to busy? eli ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 16:50:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. Maryland & Virginia suburbs have been deleted from area code 202. Attempting to use area code 202 for long distance calls to such points will get an intercept message telling you that the area code for the number you dialed is 301 or 703 as the case may be. Long distance calls to Md. suburbs were, coming into 1987, dialed like this: 1+7D (from within 301) 1+301+7D (from outside 301) (or 1+202+7D, except to outer fringes, from inside or outside 301) The above assumed N0X/N1X area codes (still true) and NNX prefixes. In 1987, N0X/N1X prefixes were introduced to the DC area, and the above instruction became: 1+301+7D (or 1+202+7D, except to outer fringes) Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been created), and the above instruction is now: 1+301+7D All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. (I "half" doubt that 202 was useable from, say, Laurel [Md.] to the Va. suburbs. Laurel, except for pseudo-foreign prefixes such as 621, is local to DC but not to Va.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #703 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05417; 3 Oct 90 4:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22577; 3 Oct 90 2:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17372; 3 Oct 90 1:45 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 0:53:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #704 BCC: Message-ID: <9010030053.ab07373@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 00:53:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 704 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Punch-Card Phone Bills [David Barts] Cost of Bandwidth (Was: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines) [Henry Schaffer] Strange International (???) Number [Jack Winslade] Mental Harassment [Jim DePorter] Cordless Phone Woes [Pete Holsberg] AT&T Universal/BOC Calling Cards [Douglas Scott Reuben] 302+7D in Local Call From 215 [Carl Moore] The Light Signal Question Again [Craig Steinberger] Telco Ads (Was: MCI as Slamming King) [Joel Levin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:40:29 pdt From: David Barts Subject: Punch-Card Phone Bills djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Here are a few items contained in J Edward Hyde's _The_Phone_Book_, a > tome that exposes pre-MFJ, pre-divestiture Bell System: > * billing punch cards: in the good old days when punch cards were sent > with the phone bills, there was some creative carving done to those cards. > In one case, a customer cut a few holes in one of those cards. The result > was free phone service indefinitely. However, someone else did a few > slices to the card, only to wind up paying for 387 red phones instead of > a single black one. The "good old days" are no earlier than 1988, and may still be exist TODAY in some parts of the country. While I lived in Prosser, WA (509-786) the local telco (United Telephone) was still sending out bills on punch cards. My first several bills were that way, then one come with a "We're modernizing our billing system" form letter and from the next month on their bills were on laserprinted forms. (Before you ask, no I didn't perform surgery on the punch cards.) United Tel. in the Yakima Valley was a bit backwards, but nothing like some complaints I've heard about them in this Digest. The local service was very reasonable ($7.50 a month for unlimited local calls), switches in all but the smallest (less than 1,000 pop.) towns were all electronic switches. I never had any problems with my local service and the service reps. were always pleasant and professional. On the day my phone service started, they arranged a phone book to be delivered by express courier, with a letter thanking me for my business. Of course, it *was* easy for them to give me reliable service -- the Prosser CO was 1/2 a block away! Also, at that time you could pick any 1+ LD carrier you wanted -- as long as it was ATT. There was no 900- or 976- service as they had decided it was too much trouble to offer blocking as required by the state, so they just turned it off. Despite its sometimes backward tendencies, I was very pleased with United Tel., and I was not alone in this attitude. People in Prosser were generally pleased with the quality of their phone service. This is in contrast with the (mostly GTE) Tri-Cities, where people would complain long and loud about poor service, indifferent CSR's, and high rates. ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Cost of Bandwidth (Was Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines) Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 02:43:06 GMT In article <12433@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 666, Message 6 of 11 >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. While processing is getting cheaper, it still requires extra equipment and therefore there will be a tradeoff depending on the relative costs of this processing and the savings in bandwidth. Bandwidth seems to be getting cheaper, and we can get a very rough indication of the costs of bandwidth vs. electronics from looking at the relative costs of different amounts of bandwidth, e.g., 64 kbs vs. T1. The 24 fold increase in bandwidth typically costs about 5 times as much. Even assuming that T1 termination electronics cost no more than 64 kbs, this suggests that under a fifth of the total line costs are attributable to bandwidth. (I'm also assuming that the charges are related to the costs of providing the service.) I would expect there to be progress in dynamic allocation of bandwidth, and the ability to request it, but if the cost goes up slowly with the extra bandwidth then there would not be much pressure to do processing to minimize voice bandwidth except for the most expensive lines such as transoceanic ones. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Oct 90 22:08:36 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Strange International (???) Number Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 While skimming through the back pages of this week's {Village Voice}, you know, the pages with those quasi-slick ads for all of the talk lines, date lines and dial-a-slut lines, one number stuck out like a sore thumb. It was: 011-559-2xxx There were two footnotes, one stating that 'Normal international rates will apply' and another stating that 'Normal long-distance rates will apply'. The text implied that the numbers had something racier than permitted in the US. I know that 55 is the country code for Brazil, but could 9-2xxx possibly be a valid city code/directory number ?? (Yes, I checked the Phone Book and did not find any Brazil city codes beginning with 9.) Is this a real number in Brazil, or is this just some kind of numbering anomaly?? I haven't called it. I'm not >THAT< curious. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS - Everything but the kitchen TSYNC. Omaha --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Jim DePorter Subject: Mental Harassment Date: 2 Oct 90 23:13:49 GMT Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR On the radio and in the newspaper today have been articles about a state mental patient making dozens of obscene phone calls to a couple. The calls started last Friday and kept up over the weekend. The couple had the guy tell them his name and found out he was calling from the Oregon State Hospital. They called the hospital and were told that due to patient confidentiality the hospital could not give any info about the patient. The couple called the Portland police and while the officer was there the patient again telephoned. The officer called the hospital and was told there wasn't anything they could do about the calls. Seems the only way the patient could be kept from the telephone would be to lock him in his room which the hospital termed as cruel and unusual punishment. Now the interesting points. The patient is John Carl Eaton who five years ago walked into his psychiatrist's office and fired several shots into him in front of witnesses. He was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and has spent the last five years in the state hospital. According to Oregon law he can get the charges dropped after five years. The crazy thing about this is that the phone is near a nurses station and that it is a pay phone!!! Why lock him up? Just take away his quarters! jimd [Moderator's Note: I would use a little guerrilla warfare to teach the hospital staff exactly what 'cruel and unusual punishment' is all about. It may be he is not even using coins to pay for the calls. He might have a fraud calling card number, a 800 wats-extender he is linking into, or who knows what. Get the phone number at the nursing station and for the hospital superintendent. Everytime the inmate makes a call, make one in return to the nursing station and *demand* that they get him under control. Call and raise a ruckus with the superintendent. Tell him if he can't get his patients under control that you will sue the institution to force him to do his job. Before long, the staff will get tired of hearing from you, and its likely they will lock the patient up somewhere, pump him full of medication and keep him away from the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pete Holsberg Subject: Cordless Phone Woes Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:55:22 GMT My relatively new AT&T 4600 cordless phone stopped working the other day. The "hot line" says it's a scrambled security code caused by the phone's being (a) physically next to the refrigerator and/or (b) plugged into the same outlet. Are they correct? Will an isolation transformer help? If simply interrupting the power for 15+ seconds will reset everything, is there anything I can do to back up the phone number memory in the base unit so that I don't have to reenter it each time this happens? Thanks, Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91 ------------------------------ Date: 2-OCT-1990 00:17:18.99 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: AT&T Universal/BOC Calling Cards Hi all- After getting into an e-mail conversation with Ken Selling here at Wesleyan, a few questions arose about the how calling card numbers are assigned and verified. I'll state what I have have come to *think* occurs, and please DO correct me where I am wrong: 1. Normal assignment: I ask my local Bell Co. for a calling card. They generate a PIN for my number, and mail it to me. IF I have AT&T as my primary ("1+") then AT&T will mail me one as well, or if not, they will mail me one when I ask for one. They will take the PIN from the BOC "database" and use that as my AT&T PIN. The only reason I would want an AT&T Card which is the same as my BOC card is for AT&T Card Caller phones, GTE Airphone (or other AT&T Card specific devices) and if I have the Reach Out America and the ROA Card Call Option (used to be "Call Home" option, but it has been recently expanded, at least in some areas, to cover all ROA applicable calls after 10PM.). If I didn't get the AT&T Card then I was told that I couldn't use the ROA Card program, although the BOC and AT&T cards are identical. 2. Special assignment: I want a card that does not have my telephone number as the "base" number, ie, a fictitious number such as "761-009-1123". If I call my Bell Company, they make one up, and assign it a PIN. This then goes into the database. However, does AT&T (or can AT&T) issue me a card that is the same as this? IE, does it work the same way as "normal assingment"? Or must AT&T give me a different card number? 3. Call AT&T first: What if I call AT&T first? How does it work if I ask for a normal card number? (IE, a regular calling card?). What about a "special" number? Does AT&T simply call my local BOC and arrange it with them? Or can AT&T assign me a PIN, and then the number is picked up by my local BOC and they issue me a card? (Or at least honor the number)? I guess what I am really getting at is how the database works. The reason I am asking is because it seems that the BOCS can handle the "special" Universal Card number for BOC-handled (intRA-LATA) calls, while Sprint, MCI, and the AOS companies can't (The BOC that I tried it in is SNET, but from what I've heard, it works in "real" BOCs as well.) I would think that there is only one database (?), which the BOCs "run" and which all the Long Distance Companies access. (For Bell-type calling card calls, not Sprint FON Card, et. al.) Yet why will an AOS "gladly" take my regular calling card, but be unable to take a Universal, or perhaps even a "special" card? Is a special card generated by AT&T considered to be "proprietary" and thus "off-limits" to AOSs? IE, does AT&T say "This is NOT a BOC generated card - WE generated it, for OUR customers only. We allow the BOCs to use it for intra-LATA calls, but you AOS outfits can't touch it!" (Sorry for the dramatics! :-) ). This is the only way I can see it working with a single database system, so is this right? Somewhat close? Or totally off? On a side note, is there a central computer which manages the entire database, or is it a decentralized system where each BOCs (or each TSPS, or some subunit) maintains a copy of the database which it uses for calls from Calling Card calls from within that area, and which communicate with each other for updates, cancellations, etc.? I have comments about another aspect of Calling Cards: A while back I posted a (rather long, confusing, etc.) message about differences in AT&T Calling Card systems from region to region. One system, which I described as a "new" system, (which checks to see if a sequence-call number is valid by itself, not letting the network do it), usually sounds like "Thank you for using" "AT&T". I compared this to the older sounding "Thank you" or the intermediate "Thank you for using AT&T" (no pause, all in one breath). Recently, I've noticed that SNET *seems* to be using the same AT&T system. When I place a local calling card call, after I enter my card number I hear: "Thank you for using" "your local telephone company". (Did SNET forget to change that generic to "SNET"?? :-) ) Also, if you press the "#" sign for a sequence call, but the number is invalid or cannot be handled by SNET, you will hear "You may only dial another" "local telephone company" "call, now." Compare this to the AT&T message (you guessed it!): "You may only dial another" "AT&T handled" "call, now". So what's going on here? Are they indeed using the same calling card system, which can differentiate between SNET and AT&T calls? Or do they just have the same equipment, ie, AT&T has the system and SNET bought one, but it is not the same physical device which handles both? (I've also noticed this on Staten Island, NY, on the north end...). Guess that's it for calling card questions... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 18:12:15 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 302+7D in Local Call From 215 I stand corrected by David Tamkin regarding 302+7D without leading 1 in local call from 215 area (Pennsylvania). It can remain useable, due to the practice of NOT making prefixes which match your area code or neighboring ones. (Such practice, as he pointed out, helps prevent confusion so that if you hear, orally or in radio ad, your own area code or a neighboring one, you know there are 7 more digits--not 4.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:53:05 EDT From: Craig Steinberger Subject: The Light Signal Question Again Pat, I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself. I looked in HELLO DIRECT, but they don't ahve anything like that. If you don't know of the top of your head, can you direct me to a mail order company that might carry things like that. Thank you, Craig Steinberger craig@fractal.eng.buffalo.edu [Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest. Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with a parts list, etc. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Telco Ads (Was: MCI as Slamming King) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:17:29 EDT From: David Tamkin >Speaking of the word *them*, what does the readership think of MCI's >new round of get-back-at-AT&T commercials? They really go for the >jugular, don't they? Haven't seen those; but now I'm laughing at the new AT&T long distance ads presenting your telephone as the newest entertainment medium! JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #704 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06558; 3 Oct 90 5:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13977; 3 Oct 90 3:52 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22577; 3 Oct 90 2:50 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 2:07:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #705 BCC: Message-ID: <9010030207.ab32235@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 02:07:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 705 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 10% Electronics Tax Apparently Cancelled -- For Now [Lauren Weinstein] Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [Nelson Bolyard] Italy City Code List [Carl Moore] Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [Hans Mulder] The Origin of Cheese Boxes [Ed Greenberg] The True Story About Cheese Boxes [David Lesher] Israel and Calling Card to AT&T [Hank Nussbacher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:37:03 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: 10% Electronics Tax Apparently Cancelled -- For Now Greetings. Good news. It took a bunch of phone calls to pin this down, but it *appears* (for the moment) that the proposed 10% electronics tax did not make it into the final draft of the budget agreement that is currently under consideration. As late as Monday afternoon, personnel at our U.S. Senator's office believed the tax *was* in there, and that it *would* affect computer and telecommunications equipment, as well as consumer electronics. Other sources gave the price level at which the electronics tax would kick in as either $100 or $1000, depending on who you talked to. Meanwhile, on Monday morning, the {Wall Street Journal} published an article saying the electronics component of the tax was *not* in the final agreement. So there was considerable conflicting information. Much of the confusion apparently revolves around the many drafts of the agreement and the incredible flurry of activity involving consideration of the budget. In any case, according to a phone conversation I just had (Tuesday, around noon, PDT) with a {Wall Street Journal} writer who was by far the best versed on this topic of anyone I had reached anywhere, the 10% tax on electronics equipment is indeed *not* in the present agreement. According to current info, the 10% tax *would* apply to: Furs over $5K (except leather and artificial fur) Jewelry (including watches) over $5K Private boats and yachts over $100K Autos over $30K This is all to take effect this coming Jan 1 if the budget agreement passes. The electronics tax was indeed in the agreement originally, but was dropped from the final draft, apparently. It is important to note, however, that this is all subject to sudden change. The electronic equipment tax could reappear at any time in the negotiations, either now or later. So it would be a very good idea to keep as close a track of the developments as possible, because if changes occur we probably will have VERY little time to react and let our opinions be known. And of course, there are many other aspects of the budget agreement, in terms of other taxes, fees, program cutbacks, etc., that are also very important, and about which our representatives would appreciate our input, I'm sure. Apparently they haven't been getting very many calls about the budget, and they really are interested in hearing voters' opinions when you call. Given how difficult it is to obtain basic information about something as important as the budget, the more people in the technical community keeping abreast of what's going on, from different angles, the better! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 00:11:30 GMT In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance >> calls). While Ramparts was in rather illegal territory with that >> article, the actions Ma Bell took were probably the issue here. Bell >> agents were ordered to find all extant copies of the offending >> {Ramparts Magazine}, trying to get the subscription lists, going after >> newsstand dealers, threatening any radio stations that mentioned the >> action, etc. >My mother was working for Los Angeles County Library at the time the >Ramparts article appeared; orders came down from the top to cut out >the offending article and destroy it. But she made a copy first and >brought it home. (Not that we ever did anything with it -- she just >felt uncomfortable having stuff disappear into "the memory hole"). I would imagine, and hope, that now in our modern age of 5ESS switches &c that nothing one could do on a POTS line would be able to "suppress call supervision on incoming long distance calls" and thus the information in that (in)famous article would no longer be a threat to the phone system. I'm under the impression that fifteen years ago, there was little difference between a POTS line and a line inside the phone system, between switches. If one knew how to construct the right device to generate the right switching and routing signals, one could do interesting things form an ordinary POTS line, like tie up all the LD trunks between two cites, or something. I think this was due to "in-band" signalling. But now, with advancements in "signalling", e.g. things like Signalling System Number 7, I'm under the impression that signalling is done largely "out of band" and no amount of the right tones and clicks will have these effects. If my impressions are basically right, then that old Ramparts article could finally be published, under the heading of "Fifteen years ago, this would have been a big scoop." Can anybody say with certainty if the article is still a threat? If the answer is a definite "no", then would somebody please publish it? (Does you mother still have her copy, Clay ?) Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. [Moderator's Note: Mother (NOT Clay's mother!) has always hated {Ramparts Magazine} with a passion since back in the middle sixties when the magazine announced they would print AT&T's credit card check-digit formula in their next issue. AT&T went to the highest court in the nation to get a prior-restraint order against Ramparts to prevent publication of the article, which Ramparts said 'will explain how to create your own telephone credit card.' Remember, thirty years ago the AT&T card number formula was a simple-minded thing which involved a 'key letter' based on the fourth or fifth digit of the phone number, and it changed yearly. The issue hit the streets just as AT&T got the court order; Ramparts had to pick up copies from the news dealers and destroy them. The magazine, whose name comes from the first stanza of 'The Star Spangled Banner' ("...whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ...") vowed then to get even; Ma Bell triumphantly vowed to squash anyone else who tried to give away corporate secrets. For the curious, the word 'rampart' is an archaism, an erstwhile term from the Middle English which literally means 'a hole in the ground with a mound of dirt in front of it behind which someone can hide to observe the actions of others.' PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:33:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Italy City Code List The following is my updated list for Italy. Major expansion provided by list sent in by dik@cwi.nl , and I added anglicized names where available. 39 Italy 1xx is north west 10 Genova (Genoa) 11 Torino (Turin) 121 Pinerolo 122 Susa 123 Ceres 124 Pont Canavese 125 Ivrea 131 Alessandria 141 Asti 142 Casale Monferrato 143 Novi Ligure 144 ¥`Acqui Terme 15 Biella 161 Vercelli 163 Borgosesia 165 Aosta 166 Chatillon 171 Cuneo 172 Bra 173 Alba 174 Mondovi 175 Saluzzo 182 Albenga 183 Imperia 184 San Remo 185 Rapallo 187 La Spezia 19 Savona 2 Milano (Milan) 3xx is Lombardia 30 Brescia 31 Como 321 Novara 322 Borgomanero 323 Omegna 324 Domodossola 331 Busto Arsizio 332 Varese 341 Lecco 342 Sondrio 343 Chiavenna 344 Porlezza 345 Zogno 346 Clusone 35 Bergamo 362 Seregno 363 Caravaggio 364 Pisogne 365 Bagolino 371 Sante Angelo Lodigiano 372 Cremona 373 Crema 374 Soresina 375 Viadana 376 Mantova 377 Casalpusterlengo 381 Vigevano 382 Pavia 383 Voghera 384 Mortara 385 Stradella 386 Ostiglia 39 Monza 4xx is north east 40 Trieste 41 Venezia (Venice) 421 Eraclea 422 Treviso 423 Montebelluna 424 Asiago 425 Rovigo 426 ¥`Adria/Porte Tolle 427 Maniago 428 Tarvisio 429 Montagnana 431 Grado 432 Udine 433 Ampezzo 434 Pordenone 435 Pieve di Cadore 436 Cortina d'Ampezzo 437 Belluno 438 Conegliano 439 Feltre 442 Cerca 444 Vicenza 445 Thiene 45 Verona 461 Trento (Trent) 462 Predazzo 463 Male 464 Rovereto 465 Pinzolo 471 Bolzano 472 Bressanone 473 Merano 474 Dobbiasco 481 Gorizia 49 Padova (Padua) 5xx is central 50 Pisa 51 Bologna 521 Parma 522 Reggio nell'Emilia 523 Piacenza 524 Fidenza 525 Borgo Val di Taro 532 Ferrara 533 Mesola 534 Porretta Terme 535 Mirandola 536 Pavullo nel Frignano 541 San Marino (indendent country, to change to +295) 542 Imola and Rimoni 543 Forli 544 Ravenna 545 Lugo 546 Brisignella 547 Cesena 55 Firenze (Florence) 564 Grosseto 565 Piombino 566 Gavorrano 571 San Miniato Citta 572 Pescia 573 Pistoia 574 Prato 575 Arezzo 577 Siena 578 Montepulciano 583 Lucca 584 Viareggio 585 Carrara/Massa 586 Livorno 587 Pontedera 588 Volterra 59 Modena 6 Roma (Rome)(includes Vatican City, independent country, whose country code is given as "39 66982") 66 Civitavecchia 7xx is south west 70 Cagliari 71 Ancona 721 Pesaro 722 Urbino 731 Iesi 732 Sassoferrato 733 Macerata 734 Fermo 735 San Benedetto del Tronto 736 Ascoli Piceno 737 Camerino 742 Foligno 743 Spoleto 744 Terni 746 Rieti 75 Perugia 761 Viterbo 763 Orvieto 765 Fara in Sabina 771 Gaeta 773 Latina 774 Tivoli 775 Frosinone 776 Arpino 781 Iglesias 782 Tortoli 783 Oristano 784 Nuoro 785 Abbasanta 789 Olbia 79 Sassari 8xx is south east 80 Bari 81 Napoli (Naples) 823 Santa Maria Capua Vetere 824 Benevento 825 Avellino 827 Calitri 828 Battipaglia 831 Brindisi 832 Lecce 833 Casarano 835 Matera 836 Otranto 85 Pescara 861 Teramo 862 L'Aquila 863 Avezzano 864 Pr¥`atola Peligna 865 Is¥`ernia 871 Chieti 872 Atessa 873 Vasto 874 Campobasso 875 T¥`ermoli 881 Foggia 882 San Severo 883 Andria/Barletta 884 Manfredonia 885 Cerignola 89 Salerno 9xx is the islands 90 Messina 91 Palermo 921 Cefalu 922 Agrigento 923 Trapani 924 Alcamo 925 Sciacca 931 Siracusa 932 Ragusa 933 Gela 934 Caltanissetta 935 Enna 941 Tortorici 942 Taormina 95 Catania 961 Catanzaro 962 Crotone 963 Vibo Valentia 964 Locri 965 Reggio di Calabria 966 Palmi Calabro 967 Chiaravalle Centrale 968 Nicastro 971 Acerenza/Potenza 972 Rionero in Vulture 973 Lauria 974 Agropoli 975 Sala Colsilina 976 Muro Lucano 981 Castrovillari 982 Paola 983 Rossano Calabro 984 Cosenza 985 Verbicaro 99 Taranto ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 19:11:01 +0100 From: Hans Mulder Subject: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands In an article that has expired before I found the time to type this in, somebody asked about the equivalents of 800/900/976 numbers in other countries. In the Netherlands PTT Telecom has managed to confuse everybody by creating a single new area code (06) containing the equivalents of both 800 and 900 numbers. The Consumers' Association has demanded that the toll numbers be changed into 07 numbers, but since all 07X area codes are already in use, this is not possible. Instead PTT Telecom have inserted a sticker into our phone bill. The text translates to: Green 06 numbers are free. Remember, for non-free 06-numbers: Don't hesitate to call, but be aware of the cost. In case you're wondering: "green" numbers are defined as free 06-numbers. PTT Telecom also produced a flyer "what everybody should know about 06 numbers". It contains a useful table: if it begins it costs 06-0... free 06-11 15 to 30 c/min equivalent of 911 06-320... 50 c/min. 06-321... 3 to 40 c/min 06-399... 3 to 40 c/min 06-4... free 06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones weekend: 62 c/min 06-8... 3 to 40 c/min 06-9... 50 c/min. All prices are approximate. For one thing, the real price is 1 message unit (15 c) per X seconds. Plus, they reserve the right to change the tariff without prior notice. There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. Next time I'll tell you about the night when PTT Telecom intended to demonstrate that 06 was also usable as the choke exchange and found out the hard way that it was not. All typos are mine, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 09:34 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: The Origin of Cheese Boxes "Henry E. Schaffer" writes: > I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name >"cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom >"cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does >anyone know? "Back when I was a boy" restaurants received loaves of cheese (cream cheese comes to mind) in long wooden boxes. My _understanding_ is that original call forwarding boxes were made using these wooden boxes as the chassis. edg ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: The True Story Ahout Cheese Boxes Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 20:33:04 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers [henry schaffer asked about where the term "cheesebox" came from.] The Mob's first wireman of note made them a call diverter. When it came time to mount it...... Thereafter, he was named after his device. He wrote a great book on his life in the and around the Mafia. The call diverters were used for numbers houses. The Mob loved them because they no longer had to pay off the local beat & vice cops. When they raided the storefront, no one was there ... When the cops figured out the scam, THEY put a price on Cheesebox's head because he was costing them their bribes. I recommend his book, even though I cannot remember his true name. The title is similar to: Cheesebox My Life in the Mafia. Try your local OCLC terminal for details. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 305-255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 07:17:35 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Israel and Calling Card to AT&T On Sept 27th, 1990 Israel started Calling Card service to AT&T. People in Israel can contact the AT&T operator directly by calling 177-100-2727 (177 is the Israeli 800 code). Calling Card charges are $5.48 for the 1st minute and $1.20 for every minute thereafter. If a collect call is made, it is $8.76 for the 1st minute and $1.20 for every minute after that. People in Israel can get Calling Cards if one has a mailing address and phone number in the USA willing to receive the card. AT&T has indicated that once an account is established, the billing can be transferred to an Israeli address. Hank Nussbacher, Israel [Moderators Note: An ineresting story to say the least, especially since Israel is one of the countries red-lined from card calls in certain neighborhoods of our larger cities. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #705 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06531; 4 Oct 90 1:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24644; 3 Oct 90 23:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15175; 3 Oct 90 22:55 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 22:41:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #706 BCC: Message-ID: <9010032241.ab17729@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 22:41:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 706 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In! [Bill Cerny] Re: Data vs Voice [SUMMARY] [Tom Olin] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Joel B. Levin] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Eduardo Krell] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Samuel W. Ho] Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? [Joel B. Levin] Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Ronald Decoste] Re: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) [Richard O'Rourke] Re: Phone Tree Hardware [Brian Crawford] Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [John Higdon] Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Kevin Collins] Re: Which Came First? [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In! Date: 1 Oct 90 18:34:46 GMT In article <12801@accuvax.nwu.edu> dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael Dorl) writes: >The real sleaze in this deal is the $9.00 (3.98 plus 1.97/minute, 2.5 >minute minimum) cost of the 900 number call you must call to claim the >prize. >How does the $9.00 get divided up between the two LECs and the IXC? A summary of usage charges for three national 900 carriers: IXC Per Minute* Billing Uncollectables AT&T 0.30/0.25 10% of retail (incl. with billing) Sprint 0.35/0.28 (none) 7% (8% for call >$10) Telesphere 0.46 0.12/call 7% - >30% of retail *(less than 25,000 minutes/month) In turn, the LEC gets their normal FG D per minute charge from the IXC. I don't foresee the audiotex industry policing itself, which means federal regulation/legislation is inevitable. The best we could hope for would include the consumer protection features of Pacific*Bell's 900 service (viz., a "grace period" during which program ID and call charges are given _before_ billing begins). Then the "900 = sleaze" hysteria will fade, and we'll flame somebody else. ;-) Humble request: when bashing a 900 program, please include the 900 number (personal theory: Telesphere 900 numbers receive the most complaints, AT&T the fewest). Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 09:14:19 EST From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Data vs Voice [SUMMARY] In our last episode... I had asked for an explanation of how phone calls were supposedly sliced and diced to achieve statistically based multiplexing (although not in those exact words). I posed the hypothetical situation of a fully loaded network doing 50% duty cycle on each call, then having all callers jump to 100% duty cycle. I wanted to know what would happen to the network and to the individual calls. Everybody who responded to my question said the same thing: The current phone system (with a very few exceptions, maybe) does not packet switch. It uses time division multiplexing only. Every call is allotted a constant bandwidth, whether the callers are silent or screaming. THUS, A DATA (MODEM) CALL CURRENTLY USES NO MORE OF THE NETWORK'S BANDWIDTH THAN DOES A VOICE CALL. The respondents also pointed out that techniques for packetizing calls are actively being investigated, so in the future, a modem call might indeed cost more than a voice call. But not yet. Thanks to: Wayne Sung uunet!tabasco.lcs.mit.edu!ath (Andrew Heybey) uunet!turing.cs.rpi.edu!borcherb (Brian Borchers) uunet!ihlpl.att.com!mea (Mark E Anderson) kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) uunet!xavax.COM!alvitar (Phillip Harbison) And thanks to goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) for his recent posting to c.d.t on the subject. Tom Olin uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:13:17 EDT >[Moderator's Note: Most telcos seem to change the number a lot, and >they tend to be in the range of 200-xxx-xxxx. PAT] Here in NETel land, I have never seen it change. It's always been the above number (except one CO where it's always been 200-2622 (!)). (At least since around 1970, anyway, when Cambridge got in a lot of new ESS stuff; previously you could find your own number on several exchanges by just dialing 225.) nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 20:50:37 EDT >For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than >other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, >most specifically including quantifying how much faster. If I'm not mistaken, MCI and/or Sprint complained to the FCC about that claim in AT&T ads, and AT&T presented the FCC enough evidence to have them drop the charges and let the ads continue to run... Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:57:10 CDT From: Samuel W Ho Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? The only specific claim I have seen AT&T make is call completion "40% faster." For that, they did give, at least on the TV version, specific numbers in the fine print. I think AT&T averages a 3.5 second completion time, while MCI was about 6 seconds. In fact, MCI did sue them alleging deceptive advertising, but it was thrown out of court. The judge ruled that 40% is 40%, even if it is matter of less than 3 seconds. The ad ran something like this: AT&T calls complete 40% faster. (Numerous shots of person twiddling thumbs while holding phone.) That's like paying someone to do nothing. (Shot of paper airplane sailing into wastebasket. Fine print detailing statistics.) AT&T The Right Choice The funny thing is that at four seconds a call, full time doing nothing requires 7200 calls a day. These are only inter-lata calls, mind you. If these calls cost even 0.25 each, this is a monthly inter-lata long distance bill of $36,000. That is a good-sized telecom budget. Fact is, completion time is (within bounds) not that important. If somebody has to repeat something once because of noise, that wipes out a four-second difference. Noise lasts the whole call, too. It's a rough world out in ad-land. Sam Ho (ho@csrd.uiuc.edu) ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:15:09 EDT The Moderator quotes a very high rate for an FX line between Chicago and New York. That is to be expected; the rates are based on mileage between two central offices. I had an FX line between two adjacent COs because from the next one over I could get unmeasured service to the Boston area; from mine the best I could get was Bay State service, which allowed one or two hours of calling within (then) 617 and a flat rate per additional minute. The break-even was around 30 hours / month; still a lot, but frequently I had to log into a machine at work all evening. I'll bet I never made up the installation charges, though. The monthly charges were based on several dollars per mile (this is in-state rates), more heavily weighted toward the first five miles, plus charges for two channel interface units that lived in the COs, plus the going rate for Metropolitan (unmeasured) service in the foreign exchange. Total back then, around $100/month. But installation was around $350 (!). JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ From: Ronald Decoste Subject: Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins Reply-To: Ronald Decoste Organization: Universite de Montreal Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 14:32:21 GMT We are also experiencing transmission errors with are dialup lines since our new phone switch went into operation. Things were so bad that we had to revert to direct lines from the CO until a solution is found. The switch (multiple Meridian SL1's) is connected to the DMS-100 by a fiber DS-3 link for aapprox. 350 trunks. Brian Kantor's article suggests that some jumpers must be set properly on some interface cards. Does anyone know more about this ? Which jumpers on what cards for the DMS and for the SL1 ? Ronald ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:40:42 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History > There were five basic designs tested, having the following > test results: It is interesting to note that the adding machine keypad layout was not tested. Perhaps NIH on the part of AT-n-T? Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ From: Richard O'Rourke Subject: Re: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) Date: 2 Oct 90 02:31:35 GMT Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada In article <12856@accuvax.nwu.edu>, macy@fmsystm.uucp (Macy Hallock) writes: > In article <12745@accuvax.nwu.edu>: [Discussion of bandwidth vs. channel use in progress...] > Muzak and other music services do charge for the use of their > material. (Although I suspect a lot of it gets hooked up by > installers without regard to contractual obligations....) Last I > heard, Muzak charged around $5/mo per trunk in this area. Going off on a tangent: Music on hold disturbs me in any case. What is more disturbing though, is that it is often played at a level that can be misinterpreted as background noise. This can cause problems in calls routed through some types of equipment, such as fast packet gear. If companies are going to force stuff into your ear while your on hold, it might as well be an advertisement. That will give them the incentive to turn it up, and me the incentive to hang up and call back when they have the time to service me. Possibly saving bandwidth in the meantime, if going over packet gear. Richard O'Rourke: (604)438-8249 | Grass Root Systems: 436-1995 UUCP: uunet!van-bc!mplex!grassys!ror | Smart UUCP: ror@grassys.bc.ca ror@grassys.wimsey.bc.ca | ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Phone Tree Hardware Date: 2 Oct 90 18:23:56 GMT Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe In article <12798@accuvax.nwu.edu>, trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > I am looking for some relatively inexpensive hardware to set up a > phone tree/voice mail system in my house. Basically what I want is a > the following: You might try the "Dialogic" board. That company makes a four-line and twelve-line model, and is PC based. I think they make a PS2 model as well. They make alot of interesting PC based telephone interface cards (DID Interfaces, etc). They used to make a two-line card, too. But, I don't know if they're still selling it. If you go with it and need software, I've written alot of software and hardware drivers for it, and have even made proprietary hardware mods to the board. Be happy to pass it on if you like. Good luck. Brian ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: 2 Oct 90 11:07:22 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 2 at 2:40, Steve Elias writes: > What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO > has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number > forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few > rings, and then a busy signal. Surely this will confuse people who > call me and don't know that I'm a telecom weirdo... But what about > the "supervision" return codes to the originating CO? If someone > calls long distance and this happens, will they get billed because of > the change in cadence from ringing to busy? Steve, as a telecom weirdo (TM), you must be aware that long distance companies (including Sprint) use the traditional supervisory signal that is not related in any way to what is happening on the audio path. When the distant phone is actually answered, the distant CO notifies the originated CO ALL THE WAY through the IXC (if one is used) via positive means that depends not on any sound made at the distant end. In the old days, this was represented by a reversal of battery on the line or inter-office trunk. In the days of long distance MF signaling, removal of 2600 Hz indicated supervision or "reversal". Now, of course, supervision in indicated through the CCIS control channel. Those two-bit LD companies that still "guess" at supervision generally use a simple timeout -- if the customer stays on the line for more than a preset limit, then supervision is assumed. I'm aware of none that actually "listen" for an answer. Actually, that would be superior to a timeout. In the case of COCOTs (that DO listen for stuff on the line), this would probably not confuse them. Most "listening" COCOTs check for the asymetrical signature of the human voice. A mixture of ringing and busy (both pre-supervision sounds) would probably not result in your coin being collected. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System Date: 2 Oct 90 19:44:43 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In article <12142@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 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. I am a *former* ROLM employee, but I still feel I must defend their products' honor. The recent [and not-so-recent :-)] company troubles ROLM has had are well known, but their products (PhoneMail, 8000, 9000, 9751 series CBX) are still pretty darn good. I would venture to say that the problems Mr. McGehrin's friends have had are caused more by poor configuration of the CBX than by deficiencies of the switch itself. The ROLM CBX can be configured to use about any dialling plan that the customer wants; it almost sounds as if the college in question is trying to discourage students from calling the operator. When I worked at ROLM, our phone system (ROLM, of course!) had 5-digit extensions, "0" for company operator, "9-0" for your friendly AT&T (or MCI, or Sprint) operator, etc. - none of this "678 then 0" stuff. As far as non-ROLMphones being incompatible: the CBX does have an interface for plain ole' brown phones that (I believe) supports any standard analog phone. I'm sure if I'm wrong about that, someone will correct me :-). Before somebody asks: yes, I did work in CBX development, but none of the bugs are my fault, so please don't ask me about them :-) :-). Kevin Collins Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc San Jose, CA Disclaimer: My opinions are mine. My mother agreed with me once, but that was looong ago. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 13:02:47 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Which Came First? It's odd how the brain works - I can dial a TT phone or use a 10-key layout quite rapidly. My fingers just "know" what to do. However, I'm sure many of you have experienced the strange feel and slowness of entering a phone number on the computer keybord for the modem - it just doesn't "feel" right! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #706 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08745; 4 Oct 90 2:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17987; 4 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24644; 3 Oct 90 23:59 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 23:35:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #707 BCC: Message-ID: <9010032335.ab20048@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 23:35:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 707 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [Leonard P Levine] Re: Which Came First? [David Lesher] Re: Which Came First? [Mark Brader] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Tom Ohmer] Re: McDonalds' 900 Scam [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper [Alan Parker] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Richard Shuford] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Tom Betz] Re: USEnet PC Access [Mark Harris] Re: Vanity Phone Numbers [Todd Day] Re: Mental Harrassment [Robert M. Hamer] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Strange International (???) Number [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: Italy City Code List -- Corrections [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 2 Oct 90 20:05:13 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article <12881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey): > So AT&T needed a number pad. They really had no model, so they > ran experiments to determine which was the easiest to use with the > least errors. The clear winner was the 2X5 (Two columns, five rows) as > below: > 12 > 34 > 56 > 78 > 90 Ever notice how nice the PC function keys used to feel on the pre-101 key keyboard? Just like this right? Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 20:57:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Phil, the guy whose answering machine messages caused such a problem in the 60's, had an accountant that got TT service as soon as it was offered. He had a fit about the pad layout, and Phil disassembled the pads in all his phones and made them "correct" i.e: 7 8 9 4 5 6 1 2 3 0 by swapping the buttons and moving a few wires. (the things we do to get our tax returns done on time;_]) He really wanted 0 for the bottom row, but if you remember how the pads were made, you KNOW why Phil talked him out of THAT. Things were fine for years until Mr._Tax's flunky called 611 to get one of the 1500's fixed. When the Greenie showed up, he had a fit: vandalizing PHONE COMPANY property and all the rest of that bs. But the accountant stood his ground, and refused to give up the set. The poor repairman had to actually *fix* the phone and not just swap it out. After that, they just called us over to fix their phones...... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Wed, 3 Oct 1990 06:47:23 -0400 > In Denmark, the Touch Tone pads are "Upside down". Norway, too, has the 789 at the top. I found this amusing, because, as Telecom readers know, Norway is also one of the few places in the world where DIAL telephones are numbered backwards. But whereas the backward dial is not used in Oslo, the upside-down keypad is apparently used throughout the country. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Ohmer Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: 2 Oct 90 20:02:06 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: < 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. Nice guess, but wrong. ;-) My aptartment-mate did/does not have it's own line. The primary service of *my* line was changed. 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 #include ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: McDonalds' 900 Scam Date: 2 Oct 90 21:03:10 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <12535@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeremy Grodberg writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 674, Message 3 of 11 >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. I was also unhappy to see this, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. My wife is a "McDonald's alumna", and has so much respect for that outfit that every time the budget gets tight, she talks about another return engagement. (Luckily, I'm doing better at talking her out of that masochistic tendency.) Incidentally, she does have a FT job already. Anyway, I blame NBC for this scam. After all, they get to charge more $$ if they can claim more people watching their shows, and guess how you get to find out the winning numbers? Oh, yes, they'll be posted at the drive-thru window at noon the next day, or you can call the 900 number, but they're counting on millions of people watching that night for their number. Incidentally, the fine print sez that all net proceeds from the phone calls will go to Ronald McDonald's Children Charities or somesuch, which is nice, but still doesn't change my opinion about the whole thing. Disclaimer: I'm not important in the Federal scheme of things; all opinions strictly my own, etc. Bob ------------------------------ From: Alan Parker Subject: Re: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper Date: 3 Oct 90 03:00:26 GMT Reply-To: Alan Parker Organization: Entropic Research Laboratory, Inc., Washington, DC In article <12908@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 703, Message 15 of 15 >Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local >calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. >Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been >created), and the above instruction is now: >1+301+7D >All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. Not quite. For calls within the DC metro dialing area, you do not dial the leading one. So to call from DC to Silver Spring, MD, you dial 301-589-XXXX. Note the metro dialing area includes parts of three area codes. The intention is that if you need to dial the leading 1, then the call is costing you a toll. As of this writing, I can still call from my office in DC (202-547-xxxx) to home in MD (301-870-xxxx) without dialing 301. I guess they can't reprogram all the switches over night! ------------------------------ From: Richard Shuford Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Reply-To: shuford@cs.utk.edu Organization: CS Dept--University of Tennessee, Knoxville Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 04:35:13 GMT >> Having been using US Sprint ... > You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? ... > ... 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. So that no readers of this forum get a completely wrong impression, let me add 0.02 worth of information. It may once have been true that U.S. Sprint, or its predecessor companies, leased most of its long-distance circuits from AT&T or other carriers. But it is probably safe to suppose that Sprint's circuits, at least on high-traffic routes, are now its own. From 1985 to 1988, I worked for Siecor Corporation, a joint venture of Siemens A.G. and Corning Glass Works. A major part of Siecor's business is the manufacture of single-mode fiber-optic cable for long-haul telecommunication. I know that during that period U.S. Sprint bought quite a lot of such cable from Siecor. (Many "fiber-kilometers", as we say in the trade.) This cable, and probably cable from other suppliers, went into the ground across the United States and forms the backbone of the network that is touted in advertisements. RSS shuford@cs.utk.edu ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: Greyston Business Services Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 06:17:56 GMT Quoth ropg@ooc.uva.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) in <12741@accuvax.nwu.edu>: |You can also call 1-800-666-6258. This gives you a lot of advertising |bla-bla AND your phone no. Well, it got my area code right, but it thought my phone number was "555-5555". Doesn't look like a product >I'd< want to buy. Can anyone tell me what the significance of the "5"s is? hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz Tom Betz - GBS (914) 375-1510 [Moderator's Note: We've touched on this before quite a few times. The machine did not 'think your number was 555-5555'. The use of all fives in the display is a default indicating that for some reason, your telephone number was not available to the system. That might have been a one time glich, or it might be that your telco is not passing along your number. Earlier results posted here indicated the device worked quite well; it correctly identified almost all the test-callers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Harris Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access Date: 28 Sep 90 02:07:20 GMT Organization: Omhftre BBS 73765.1026@compuserve.com (John Stanley) writes: > Help. I am looking for a cheap PC package that does UUCP mail and > 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? Try the Waffle BBS system. Dial 408-245-7726. It works. It's good. It's worth the registration of around $30. Mark Harris UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism Domain: harrism@omhftre.raidernet.com ------------------------------ From: Todd Day Subject: Re: Vanity Phone Numbers Organization: QuickSilver Rallye Team, Santa Barbara, CA Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 06:19:31 GMT mtxinu!lando.la.locus.com!yazz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Yasi) writes: >The nice thing about $38 is that it's a one-time charge ... you >guessed it; Pac Bell charges recurring monthly fees to Keep a vanity >number. Why not just tell Pac Bell to stop charging you for the vanity number (or just refuse to pay it anymore)? What can they do, force you onto a different number? How can they make sure that the new number doesn't spell somthing you wanted? :-) Todd Day | todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us | ucsbcsl!ivucsb!todd [Moderator's Note: Actually, yes they could force you to change your number, since your number always remains their property anyway. Your failure to pay their fee -- however bogus you might think it to be -- would be a good reason for telco to exercise its option. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 08:59 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: Mental Harrassment In response to a note from someone about a mental hospital refusing to control the telephone behavior of a patient, the Moderator wrote: >[Moderator's Note: I would use a little guerrilla warfare to teach the >hospital staff exactly what 'cruel and unusual punishment' is all ... I would like to add that perhaps the telephone number of the mental hospital could be posted in the Digest, and we could all call the mental hospital. Sound familiar? [Moderator's Note: I'd say let's hold off on that for awhile. If the original correspondent writes again saying the problem is continuing, then it might be worth consideration. Although the official response from the hospital was that they could do nothing without violating the patient's rights, chances are they did lock him up or otherwise politely convince him to can the Shinola, lest there be a big stink by a prosecutor somewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Date: 3 Oct 90 15:05:00 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In article <12751@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) (DS) writes: DS> What is the pricing for these services in other countries? Are the DS> same codes used for invoking the service? After sending my previous message (Message-ID: <12645@accuvax.nwu.edu>) I called the PTT Telecom operator and asked about the Call Forwarding prices. Please try to keep alive when you read the following: You have the choice between a three-month and a six-month contract. 3-month: entry price Dfl. 300 monthly Dfl. 150 6-month: entry price Dfl. 200 monthly Dfl. 90 I suppose the monthly fee applies only to the following months, otherwise it does not make sense. The exchange rate is $1 == Dfl 1.75. I was so shocked when I heard these prices that I refused to get any additional information. Now I also understand why people buy a call forwarding box and two telephone lines. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Organisation: Center for Innovation and Cooperative Technology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Strange International (???) Number Date: 3 Oct 90 18:06:44 GMT Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Winslade) writes: >While skimming through the back pages of this week's {Village Voice}, >you know, the pages with those quasi-slick ads for all of the talk >lines, date lines and dial-a-slut lines, one number stuck out like a >sore thumb. It was: 011-559-2xxx We discovered a number advertised in The Netherlands which was written as 096 114 112. Note that 09 is our 011 equivalent. The scam here was that the Australian Telecom (country code 61) kicked back part of the profits for nonexistent area code 14 to the operators of the services on this switch. They only implemented this routing on the incoming exchange, so that nobody from within Australia could call it. All of this shows that The Phone Companies are into a worldwide plot and that they make WAY TO MUCH money on international calls. How much crazier can it get? I pay for call completion, not for sleezball-profits! >Is this a real number in Brazil, or is this just some kind of >numbering anomaly?? I haven't called it. I'm not >THAT< curious. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse....... Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 10:22:31 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Italy City Code List -- Corrections [Moderator's Note: Carl advises me of errors in his submission. PAT] You have printed the following for area codes 541 and 542 in Italy: 541 San Marino (indendent country, to change to +295) 542 Imola and Rimoni "independent" and "Rimini" are misspelled, the latter according to the notes I sent you. Also, you improperly combined two lines. Here are the lines I sent, with Rimini being in 541, not 542: 541 San Marino (independent country, to change to +295) and Rimini 542 Imola Also, in the list, add the English name "Leghorn" for Livorno. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #707 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10779; 4 Oct 90 3:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05685; 4 Oct 90 2:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17987; 4 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 0:43:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #708 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040043.ab20734@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 00:43:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 708 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Kevin Collins] Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" [Julian Macassey] Re: Which Came First? [Bob Goudreau] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [R Gonggrijp] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [D. Lemson] Re: Question About Ring Current [Julian Macassey] Re: Strange "Calls To" on Phone Bill [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 3 Oct 90 18:26:09 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Dory Leifer has done some really good stuff getting TCP/IP running over ISDN. I'd just like to clarify some of the terminology and other details from his CERFnet newsletter article. >This process is not only redundant, it is inefficient. When >voice is converted from analog to digital, a bit rate of 56,000 >bits-per-second (bps) is typically dedicated to carrying it. This rate >is required to make sure that the voice will sound natural when it is >converted back to analog. Since the telephone network treats modems >the same way, a rate of 56,000 bps is also required to convey modem >signals. However, most modems send and receive at or under 2400 bps. >The rest of the capacity is wasted. Actually, the network assigns 64,000 bps per voice call. Since the existing network isn't perfectly bit-transparent, the network usually sets one bit out of eight and gives data users a 56,000 bps clear-channel pipe. You can also sometimes get a 64,000 bps pipe and take your chances, if your telco's willing. >(ISDN Basic Rate Interface...) On this wire, >three channels or digital paths exist. The channels are multiplexed >by giving each a time slice on the wire. Since ISDN channels are half >duplex or uni-directional, a "ping-pong" method is used so that when >one end transmits, the other listens. The ping pong happens with every >tick of some central clock so the link appears to be bidirectional. Actually, the local loop "U" reference point is not ping-pong, but full duplex using echo cancellation. That is, everybody listens and talks on the same wire all the time, cancelling out what you send to pick out what the other guy is sending. This takes modestly heavy silicon but the chips are now out there. Ping-pong was discarded a few years ago, though it's found in some proprietary vendor equipment. At the inside-building "S/T" reference point, they use four wires. >* 1 D or Data channel for signaling or packet People often ask what the "B" and "D" stand for. B stands for Bearer, though H channels are also bearers ("High capacity"). D, however, formally stands for "D". Long-time ISDN weenies may remember that early on, some people discussed how that channel was used for making and breaking calls, thus causing change (delta) to the B channels. But it's not a delta channel any more, just a D. Right. You Will Forget Delta. (It was never, however, Data; most data flows on B channels.) >These channels provide both signaling and transmission. Notice that >there is no distinction between voice and data on the B-channel. The >ISDN treats both as a stream of bits. Not exactly. If you ask for a stream of bits, you get it. But if you ask for "speech" or "audio", the network has the right to process your bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). >No call set-up or take-down is required when using the D-channel to >interface in packet mode. Not exactly that simple. If you use the B channel, you have to first set up a circuit call to the packet handler, THEN set up an X.25 call. If you use the D channel, you still have to set up the X.25 call, but using DSS1 (Q.931) instead of X.25 for the call establishment phase. It's one step instead of two, but not connectionless. (Yet. Just not enough datagram fans in CCITT.) Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 3 Oct 90 23:53:51 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In-Reply-To: article <12768@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Dory Leifer, sent in by Jody Kravitz: The article was very informative, but it left out a few items that I spotted, so here goes ... First of all, the article mentioned Basic Rate Interface (BRI), which is the local connection between the CO (or PBX) and the end user. It did not mention, however, Primary Rate Interface (PRI), which is the LD connection between CO's. PRI (in the US) is 23 data (B) channels and 1 control (D) channel, with all channels, both B and D, running at 64Kb/second. PRI and BRI use the same call control messages (Q.931). [Article talks about Europeans and Japanese implementing ISDN standard] Yes, they are implementing the standard, but they are doing some things differently than US manufacturers. Case in point: ISDN PRI here is 23B+D, in Europe, China, and Japan(?) it's 30B+2D. There are even differences between MCI's implementation of PRI and AT&T's implementation. Oh well, typical standard :-). [Future bank credit card service example, service rep gets customer's info from calling number, bill appears on both the rep's screen and the customer's screen, etc.] The part concerning the service rep being able to access the customer's data from the calling number is possible NOW, with PRI ANI and a link between the bank's ACD and their computer. Both BRI and PRI would be needed for the entire example to work. The customer's billing data would go over BRI from the bank to the bank's CO, over PRI from CO to CO, and over BRI from the customer's CO to the customer's BRI device, where it would be displayed. [Lack of current broadband standard] The current version of the standard has provisions for using 6 PRI B-channels together (called an H0 channel, 384 Kb/sec) and using 24 B-channels together (H11 channel, 1.536 Mb/sec [this is AT&T's number, don't know why it's not 1.544Mb/sec]). AT&T offers a "Switched 384" service (the H0 channel), but I don't think they offer the H11 channel service yet. I don't know what services of this nature MCI or Sprint offers. Kevin Collins Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc San Jose, CA ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" Date: 3 Oct 90 17:19:22 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12849@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor) writes: > In TELECOM Digest, V10, No. 693, Roger Clark refers to new FCC > regulations concerning inside wirng rules and, in particular, refers > to "the point of demarcation" between the telco's wiring and the > subscriber's wiring. > Does the FCC require that there be such a point of demarcation? I > live in GTE country and neither I, nor my neighbors, have such a > point. Does this point (which I assume is a modular jack and plug) > have to be accessible without entering the subscriber's premises, or > at least without passing through a locked gate or door? You, your neighbours and everyone in Southern California have had such a point for some years. In fact you may be paying $0.50 a month or so for "free" maintenance of your inside wiring - check your phone bill. This wiring you are paying to have maintained starts at your demarc'. The demarcation point which is the physical location where the telco responsibility for wire ends and yours begins. This is similar to the electric meter, everything after it is your wire and everything before it is Edison's wire. You can mess with your wire, you can't mess with Edison's wire. But, yes they meter your calls at the CO, not at your demarc point. The demarc is not always easy to get to. Especially if in a basement which is usually locked. To save the subscriber the grief of having to be home when the telco drops by, it is convenient to have an accessible demarc, but not essential. So where is your demarc point? In Southern California, it is usually in a little box on the wall of a house with an aerial wire leading to it. Inside the box is a device called a protector, it looks like two nuts and a ground wire, this is where the house wire connects to the telco "drop wire". Some houses have the demarc in the crawl space - many of these in West LA, Beverly Hills. Modern Demarc's are called Network Interfaces and besides the protectors they also have an RJ11 jack so that you can separate house wire from the drop so you can plug a phone in there to determine if your wire is bad or the telco circuit is bad. Apartment houses usually have all the demarcs in an easily accessible closet. Finding the right one for an apartment can sometimes be a challenge. Office buildings usually have them in the "telco closet", at least one on each floor. The demarcs are usually orange covered punch down blocks with the subscribers name on them, they are loosely referred to as the "RJ-21X". In those parts of the US that have real basements, the residential demarc is usually in the basement. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 13:20:45 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Which Came First? Reply-To: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <12879@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes: > As I have heard it, the ISO standard for numeric keypads antedated the > CCITT recommendation. When CCITT "studied" the keypad layout, AT&T > representatives refused point-blank to compromise, and CCITT > (cravenly) gave in. Hmmm. So making AT&T switch to the 7-8-9 layout would have been mere "compromise", but having CCITT adopt the 1-2-3 layout (which was found to be superior in human factors experiments run by both AT&T and CCITT) was "cravenly" giving in. Odd, that. > All praise to those (few) PTTs which held out and adopted the ISO > version. Au contraire; all praise to those (many) PTTs which adopted the CCITT recommendation. Standardizing inferiority is certainly not progress. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 3 Oct 90 18:18:39 GMT Organization: uvabick hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: >In the Netherlands PTT Telecom has managed to confuse everybody by >creating a single new area code (06) containing the equivalents of >both 800 and 900 numbers. The Consumers' Association has demanded >that the toll numbers be changed into 07 numbers, but since all 07X >area codes are already in use, this is not possible. >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. No no, not true: on one of my residential phone-lines I have outgoing call blocking ONLY for 069 and 063. They even offer this service on old stepper-switches (by adding a piece of hardware between the switch and your wires). >Next time I'll tell you about the night when PTT Telecom intended to >demonstrate that 06 was also usable as the choke exchange and found >out the hard way that it was not. Oh yeah, I had fun that night waiting for a dialtone for up to twenty minutes! By the way: a lot of the numbers in the FREE series 06-022XXXX end up outside of Holland (like 06-0229111 for AT&T USADirect) and some of them route over lines with IN-BAND signalling systems. Have PHUN! Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 2:07:27 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands >PTT Telecom also produced a flyer "what everybody should know about 06 >numbers". It contains a useful table: >06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones > weekend: 62 c/min Does this mean that the caller of a mobile phone has to pay a special surcharge as well as the owner of the mobile phone? That seems like a raw deal, because business owners who have mobile phones cannot advertise that you can call them out on the road as a "free call"! David Lemson d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Question About Ring Current Date: 3 Oct 90 16:56:37 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12850@accuvax.nwu.edu>, swatty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry) writes: > I have a question regarding ring current generation.... > Is there a gizmo on the market that will generate ring current for an > electronic key system? In this application, I have line current > working already, but I need to send ring. > Any ideas??? I have lots of ideas, but it is not clear what you are trying to do: 1. Synthesise telco ring current to feed into a KSU for testing? 2. Design a key system and devise a way to signal ringing to stations? 3. You have some electronic key sets and you would like to press them into use with a homebrew KSU and need to signal to them. Most electronic KSUs do not send ring current in the 90V 20 Hz sense to the station. Many send a digital signal that signifies ringing. So if you have some electronic sets, the brnad and model is important if you want an answer about the signalling method. And now back to Sprint vs MCI against AT&T. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: 2-OCT-1990 15:47:24.37 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Strange "Calls To" on Phone Bill I've seen some of those "strange call to:" on bills as well, mainly cellular phone bills and marine (ship-to-shore) phone bills. I think they refer to certain areas within a larger metropolitan area. I once got NYCZ2, which the nice people at NYTel told me was Mid-town Manhattan. I've also gotten SFCZ3, which, if it has anything to do with how Pac*Bell does its "ZUM" (Zone Unit Measurement) system for local calls, corresponds to "Zone 3" in the Pac*Bell SF book. (Is this so?) I have an old NYTel directory (1979), and it lists the 15 New York Zones, the 9 Nassau Zones, and the 9 Westchester Zones. I don't believe that these are used for customer calling purposes anymore, as they have been replaced (at least in the New York Metro area) by a wider-area calling system. However, they do pop up on non-Telco bills every so often, and every time I ask "why?", I am usually told "Oh, the billing computer doesn't know the REAL name for the place..." (Err..yeah...right..New York is *SUCH* a small,unheard of place that anyone could have made that mistake! ;-) ). I've never seen these occur for more rural areas, however... (Oh, if anyone wants a copy of the 1979 Call Zone map, it's in all of the New York City 1979 directories, or I can mail/fax you one if you are really interested...) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #708 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13257; 4 Oct 90 4:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07736; 4 Oct 90 3:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05685; 4 Oct 90 2:07 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 1:35:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #709 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040135.ab26350@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 01:35:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 709 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Ken Abrams] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Jim Rees] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Carol Springs] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [David Lemson] Re: More COCOTery [Bill Berbenich] PA COCOT Checklist [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Joking Reference to 1+ [Roy M. Silvernail] Authorization to Restrict 1+ Changes [Eric Dittman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: 3 Oct 90 20:55:08 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <12907@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: >What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO >has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number >forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few >rings, and then a busy signal. Are you really sure it works this way? Is a PBX involved? The rule used to be (and STILL should be) that CFDA (call forwarding-don't answer) should only be sent to a number in the SAME SWITCH. The reason for this is the concern you expressed about the confusing progress of the call and the posibility of the supervision getting fouled up as the call is passed to another switch. If the call stays in the same switch, the status of the forwarded-to line is known and the call will NOT progress if that number is busy; the called line will just continue to ring. This in itself is a little confusing since it makes it appear that the call forwarding has stopped working. Having said all that, the situation will likely change with the implementation of CCIS/SS7. When it becomes possible to find the status of the forwarded-to line via an SS7 query, it should then be possible to CFDA outside the office and allow the call to progress only if the line is not busy. Switch boundaries become somewhat blurred with SS7. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: You might be interested in knowing that your parent company Ameritech offers 'call transfer: busy/no answer' to cellular customers and it is NOT confined to the same CO, same LATA, or even the same area code. *71 on Ameritech cellular is immediate call forwarding; *72 is transfer on busy/no answer. I transfer from my 312 cellular number to my 708 voice mail number in the Centel CO. Cellular One offers the same thing here. On an unanswered call, the caller hears three or four rings, then a few seconds of silence as the call is withdrawn and sent to my voicemail. Then the caller hears the ringing resume again, or a busy signal. On both Cellular One and Ameritech Mobile, the 'if BY/DA' number is programmed each time it is used as desired by the user. Yet when I called Illinois Bell, I was told it was available for my residence phone, but the CO had to program it (all I would do is turn it on/off via *72/*73) and that it had to stay in the same CO. What does Ameritech know they are not telling Illinois Bell? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: 2 Oct 90 12:16:14 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: [in response to my conspiracy theories about why the BOC lets slamming happen] >No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of >calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be >slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of >the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- >ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a >lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T >customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business >stays with AT&T straight through. Yah, except that 1) it costs the BOC money to do the confirmations. Why should they pay to clean up an IEC's messes? and 2) I for one would be mildly pleased if the BOC called me and prevented a slam, and mildly PO'd at the IEC -- but I'd be royally furious at an IEC if the slam went through, and never even consider using them again. Not to mention that when a slam happens and gets corrected, ATT may have lost the POTENTIAL PROFIT on a few calls, but the IEC loses the income, and still had the expense of providing them. A positive sum game from the standpoint of the bell boys. Of course, this is just harmless suppositition ;^) and playful commentary. I don't have the twist of mind to really decipher phone industry plots. They make the Oswald conspiracy look like something out of an average kindergarden. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 21:32:56 GMT In article <12758@accuvax.nwu.edu>, "C. Harald Koch" writes: >In article <12368@accuvax.nwu.edu> monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty >Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes: >> 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. It seems to me, therefore, that the easiest solution (and the one that should have been used in the first place) is to put the Calling Card information on one of the other tracks. Then there is no ambiguity; the card is both optically and magnetically a credit card and a phone card. Another problem with the two-stripe solution is that the second stripe would fall in the same area as the embossing. Here is the ANSI standard, in case anyone is interested. This info is a little (ten years or so!) out of date. --------------- From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Banking Card Data Formats Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 21:20:51 EDT Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Sometime ago, there was a request for information regarding the data format of the magstripes on banking cards. At the time, I was unable to find an old message of mine that I sent to Arpa sometime back which contained that information. However, I was finally able to locate the original message, and I have extracted the information requested... AUTOMATIC TRANSACTION MAGNETIC STRIPE FORMAT -------------------------------------------- ANSI X4.16 (1976) ISO 3554 ------------------------------------------------- <-- top edge of card .223" ------------------------------------------------- <----- TRACK 1 IATA .110" | ------------------------------------------------- | TRACK 2 ABA .110" mag stripe ------------------------------------------------- | TRACK 3 THRIFT .110" | ------------------------------------------------- <----- TRACK 1: developed by the International Air Transportation Assoc. (IATA), contains alphanumeric info for automation of airline ticketing or other reservation database applications. TRACK 2: developed by the American Bankers Assoc. (ABA), contains numeric info for automation of financial transactions. This track is also used by most systems which require an identification number and a minimum of other control info. TRACK 3: developed by the Thrift Industry, contains info, some of which is intended to be changed (re-recorded) with each transaction, e.g. cash dispensers which can operate "offline". density in bits char length in bits info content per inch including parity bit --------------- -------------------- ------------ TRACK 1: 210 7 79 alphanumeric chars TRACK 2: 75 5 40 numeric chars TRACK 3: 210 5 107 numeric chars Information is read right to left beginning with the Start Sentinel (SS) character located at the right edge of the card. TRACK 1: LRC | ES | DISCRETIONARY DATA | FS | NAME (26 char max.) | SS (coded char set: 6 bit subset of ASCII plus parity) TRACK 2: LRC | ES | DISCRETIONARY DATA | FS | ACCOUNT NUMBER | SS (coded char set: BCD 4 bit subset plus parity) TRACK3: LRC | ES | DISCRET. DATA | AS | USE AND SECURITY DATA | FS | ACCOUNT # | SS (coded char set: BCD 4 bit subset plus parity) SS Start Sentinel FS Field Separator AS Account Separator ES End Sentinel LRC Longitudinal Redundancy Check For error detection an odd parity bit is included in each character and a longitudinal redundancy check (LRC) character is encoded after the End Sentinel (ES). --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 3 Oct 90 19:14:23 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In Vol. 10, Issue 703, our Moderator responds to Mark Brader and Jeff Bier: >[Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I >think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that >says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when >auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker >should determine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as >required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this >is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] And how, pray tell, is this determination to be made? By trying 911? This wastes the time of 911 operators who might otherwise be responding to real emergencies. At the least it will annoy them. (I once made the mistake of dialing 911 about a disturbance that wasn't serious enough to be classified as an emergency, and was politely chewed out and told to dial the police station instead.) Dial 911, listen for ringing, and hang up quickly? WRONG... Some people might not realize, though, why this is a bad idea. Are there, in fact, many COCOTs left that *don't* allow free emergency calls? I thought this was the one COCOT deficiency that *was* cracked down on, and heavily, fairly early on. And if one passes out labels to friends and asks them to join oneself in a campaign against "broken" COCOTs, can one really expect the friends to follow the complicated separate label policy? Or to feel comfortable about testing the free emergency call part? I suggest that there be only one label. The wording of the "emergency" part might read: "IN AN EMERGENCY, try dialing _________. No coins should be required." This conveys the information that the phone ought to work for emergency calls, while implying that such isn't necessarily the case. Of course, this means that, for safety's sake, one also shouldn't place the sticker so as to block the coin slot. Sigh. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 10:28:21 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File >Moderator's note about how we should determine whether or not a COCOT can >place 911 calls for free from a COCOT before we decide to place an OUT OF >ORDER sticker on it. How are we supposed to figure out if it can dial 911 for free, if it doesn't say on it. And even if it does say, we all know how reliable stickers on COCOTs are! I generally regard it as a bad idea to call 911, wait for a ring, and hang up. ------------------------------ From: bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 2 Oct 90 21:32:43 GMT Reply-To: bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM digest readers, is a COCOT owner? Surely one of us (maybe more) owns one of these detestable devices! Don't worry, I'm not enquiring to flame - I'd just like to hear your experiences. I'm sure anyone who reads TELECOM digest would have a correct and proper programming on their COCOT (if they owned one). :-) Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Allright ... come out of the closet and into the streets, one and all. Admit it if you own one (or more!). Tell us your side of the story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: PA COCOT Checklist Date: 2 Oct 90 18:42:56 EST Organization: HRB Systems A month or so ago, I made up a form to check compliance of COCOT's in PA. It contains the things that I normally check. I was planning on testing it and running it by the PUC first before posting it, but I've gotten caught up in the CA postings, so here it is with the warning that it hasn't been used, may be inaccurate, may be a misrepresentation of the appropriate citings, etc. The thing that the COCOTs hate the most in PA is the "free local DA" requirement -- they have to pay for it. Phone number posted ____________________ (if missing, violation of 63.94.i.2) Location _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Free directory assistance? ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.a) Free 800 service ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.e) Dialing instructions posted (63.94.i.1) Local directory assistance ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Long distance directory assist ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Long distance dialing ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Local dialing ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Accept incoming calls ___Yes ___Doesn't Ring ___No number listed If not, is this posted ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.i.3) Minimum of 10 min. for initial charge? ___min ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.97.e) Citings from: Title 52. Public Utilties Part I. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Subpart C. Fixed Service Utilities Chapter 63. Telephone Service Subchapter G. Public Coin Telephone Service ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Joking Reference to 1+ From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 19:00:27 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > There are few areas left which do not require the leading 1 in front > of a 10-digit long distance number. This is true for at least part of > the following areas (I don't know of others): > 408 in California > 516, 914 in New York > (Use of N0X/N1X prefixes sharply reduced this list.) Anchorage, Alaska does not require 1+ to preceed _any_ long-distance call. (it's all one NPA) That can make for some surprises if you should mistakenly dial Galena or some such place. Alaska intra-state rates are also very high. Kenai-Anchorage night rate was 0.10/min when I lived there ... Kenai-Seattle was only 0.12! Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Authorization to Restrict 1+ Changes Date: 3 Oct 90 21:09:35 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility I recently called my local telephone company (SWBT) to restrict my account from changes to my 1+ service without written authorization from me. Today I recieved a form from them in the mail authorizing a restriction in changes in long distance service for the account and "all the lines, trunks, and/or stations associated with it." The form also confirms the current 1+ provider. Also, there's an option to attach a listing of the telephone/ terminal/station numbers and the 1+ provider associated with each line, station, or trunk. 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #709 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14794; 4 Oct 90 5:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10284; 4 Oct 90 4:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07736; 4 Oct 90 3:11 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 2:20:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #710 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040220.ab22673@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 02:20:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 710 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [David O'Heare] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Kantor] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert] How Do I Reach This US Number? [Philip Katz] Tariff DANGER - Oct 19 in Mass. [Barton F. Bruce] DIY Residential Phone Switch [Alain Fontaine] 19" Rack Format [Klas Nordstr|m] NYNEX to Divest NY Telephone? [Henry Mensch] Mercury Marketing Again [John Higdon] Phone Ring Signal [Alan TC Penn] US vs. UK Modular Plugs [Toby Loftus] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 3 Oct 90 18:57:23 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth In article <12881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: > Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, > TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder > what the number pad was like. One of the folks here had a desk pad with a speaker phone, regular handset, and a calculator built in (I can't remember the manufacturer's name, sorry). The phone and calculator used the same numeric display, but had separate keypads. One way to do it, I guess. David O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca (note corrected spelling) +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 4 Oct 90 05:03:58 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. One of the local datacomm suppliers that I used to deal with has instituted "hawk on hold", where I get to listen to a seemingly endless pitch for whatever it is they're hawking this week whilst they're trying to track down our salescritter. I find it incredibly annoying -- when I'm on hold, I usually park the call on my speakerphone so I don't have to keep the handset up to my ear, but with the "hawk on hold" crap playing all the time, I can't really tell when the mechanical salesman ends and the live one begins. I wonder if that company has figured out why I don't call them for quotes or other information any more. I'd also like to know if they have any concept of how much additional business they've gained from that &*^$^%$ vs how much they've lost by annoying the hell out of the customers. Piping a radio station into the hold circuit isn't much better -- like when I call a particular modem company and get to listen to their local "easy listening" radio station giving me a chance to win in their ratings contests, or maybe the traffic report for Frostbite Falls, Minnesota. It just thrills the very core of my being to know that there's a traffic jam on the main freeway of a city 2,000 miles away, yes indeed! Even if the station isn't hawking something, it's virtually certain they're not playing the same kind of music the radio in my office is. I've mentioned how annoying music-on-hold and hawk-on-hold is to salescritters before. I usually get the old shuck-and-jive "the boss likes it and I can't do anything about it anyway" as an answer. My answer to THAT is to hang up. Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. As is said, vote with your feet. Tell these companies that you won't deal with them because they have such an unprofessional, nay, CALLOUS disregard for their customers. Brian ------------------------------ From: munnari!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 4 Oct 90 15:49:47 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12893@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cognos!geovision!gd@dciem.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) writes: > hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >>CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study >>Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on >>digital trunks. It would involve demodulation of the signal, >>transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal >>reaches the other end. This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz >>DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz >>for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth. > We already *have* a system that does this; in Canada it's called > Datapac. But instead of developing it into something w Australia has a Faxstream service which supposedly demodulates the fax message, packetizes it, sends it through the network digitally and delivers it to the recipient when the recipient is not busy. Delayed delivery and broadcast are also available, but I don't know any details (Time to ring yet another 008 rep :-) ) I think you just have to subscribe your fax's phone line and have FaxStream intercept your outgoing calls on request. It is supposed to be cheaper than direct dial LD, but I don't know anyone who uses it. Danny ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 08:04:28 PDT From: "John R. Covert 03-Oct-1990 1104" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Moderator's Note: John Covert forwarded this to us. PAT] From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio, Washington In TELECOM Digest Vol 10, Issue 666, Marc Kaufman writes: >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. The announcements seem to be idiosyncratic to the airlines involved. Over the last three years, I've flown a lot on America West Airlines and there's never been any mention of using RF equipment. (What does give me a hoot, especially on the Phoenix-Tucson shuttle, is listening to the detailed instructions on use of the plane's emergency flotation gear: for those not familiar with southern Arizona, you're hundreds of miles from any body of water large enough to take a bath in.) On the thread of inadvertent three-way calling (more or less), we had a peculiar incident at work a number of years ago. _How_ it happened would take a special Digest edition, but: One Saturday night, a female staff member (NOT at work that evening) accidentally got her home phone "stuck" in the building paging amp. Our telecom manager was finally able to clear the problem, but all my attempts (pick-up, barge-in, etc.) were fruitless. Of course, a lot of people were opposed to my _trying_ to correct things.... ;-) Opinions expressed are my own. NPR's opinions are made by a bunch of people upstairs. Dale Neiburg NPR Engineering 202-822-2402 ------------------------------ From: pkatz@axion.bt.co.uk (I've had enough of this Crummy Stuff!) Subject: How Do I Reach This US Number? Reply-To: PKatz@axion.bt.co.uk Organization: British Telecom Research Labs Date: Tue Oct 2 13:31:05 1990 GMT I have been trying to contact a company called ADC, and a posting to rec.audio resulted in the 'phone number 1-800-842-5421. I tried calling this (preceeding it with 010, the international access code from England), but I got a recorded announcement (with a US accent!) stating `You have called a number which is not available from your calling area'. Is there any way that I can dial this number from England? I thought that `800' numbers might be toll-free (and therefore not available internationally), but I was able to get through to 1-800-447-4700 ! BTW, don't be fooled by the address below - I know next to nothing about the 'phone systems ! Philip Katz, :|: e-mail PKatz@axion.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Laboratories :|: 'phone + 44 473 642682 RT3131, SSTF 310, Martlesham Heath :|: fax + 44 473 637619 Ipswich, Suffolk, England IP5 7RE :|: pager + 44 81 840 7000 unit 4257598 [Moderator's Note: If you want the owner of the number to pay for it, you probably can't get through. Only a very few 800 numbers are available internationally to/from the USA. Generally, 800 service is strictly domestic in nature. What you can do, if you are willing to pay for the call, is locate the area code for the city and state you are calling, then dial that area + 555-1212 and ask for the 'regular' phone number. Your international operator may have to make the enquiry for you. Then dial that number at your expense. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Tariff DANGER - Oct 19 in Mass. Date: 3 Oct 90 01:32:44 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. The new tariffs are about to go into effect in Mass. There is at least one thing you may want to check IMMEDIATELY before Oct 19., and others possibly a bit more leisurely. Not in the central Boston area, but 'out a bit' you can actually still get unlimited usage business trunks. If you have these, you are NOT allowed to also have measured ones. If you really use these hard, they can be an incredible deal. They DO cost more per month. NET&T and assorted 'agents' have been trying to 'helpfully' suggest that customers switch to the lower cost measured service and see if the actual usage charges still don't bring the bill up to the former level. For some this might be a smart idea. For others this is really DUMB. What you all better know NOW is that if you have UNLIMITED trunks on OCT 19, they are grandfathered and you can keep them! If you don't have them then, you will NEVER EVER get them again. They have been working hard to switch everyone over before "D" day. And for something else you should look at, you will now find that it is often SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to route your calls (10xxx style) to an IXC for delivery a few towns away! They have leveled the toll calls so almost anywhere in eastern MA will be the same charge (and will be a savings on the long connections), but you will be really reamed on your local calls. 11 cents (Boston area business - 1 MU call) for the first 5 minutes is no longer. 10xxx routing can save bundles, but not all carriers have filed with the state to be allowed to do intra lata traffic. If you have T1 directly into them, you will find more allow intra lata, and on T1 intra-lata pricing is apt to be 1/2 of NET&T's. The DPU claims to have disallowed feature group access for the general public, but will consider it again in Jan. I assume some end users that are using it ostensibly are terminating traffic off private interlata nets. That would be swell, imagine terminating-only style feature group D trunks just to be able to afford intra-lata calls! (that is what IXC is using to be able to give you that pricing). At least you would get another BIG win. NYNEX would have to give you the answer supervision they perversely refuse to otherwise! Small companies that previously could not justify a PBX or T1 to IXCs may well now need both just to keep local calls affordable. Before the dust settles on this mess, a few THOUSAND concerned consumers should suggested to the DPU (at one of their hearings, even) that NET&T MUST provide default 10xxx routing of your choice FREE on ALL intra lata calls other than possibly the very local ones that previously were the one MU calls. It may be trivial to have a PBX route that way, but try to get my kids or an office full of average folk using a 1a2 key system to use 10xxx for 3 towns away calls. It just won't happen. It should be quite clear the regulation isn't working too well and our local telco NEEDS it in a bad way. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 14:09:13 +0100 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: DIY Residential Phone Switch I have just received the October issue of the magazine 'Elektuur' (Dutch edition). It does contain the promised project. I have not seen any other edition yet, so I can't say anything about publication in other languages. A long description would probably ruin this already overcrowded list. I'll just tell you that there are two boards: a generic analog interface and switching board, and a microcomputer board based on the 8052-AH-BASIC processor. Eight extensions, one 'foreign network' port. Software written in BASIC, modifiable by hooking a terminal to the microcontroller. Obvious weaknesses: no DTMF decoder (yet, it could certainly be added - maybe a future project); no dial tone generator (but busy is implemented). AF ------------------------------ From: radar@cd.chalmers.se Subject: 19" Rack Format Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 18:28:20 MET I have been reading this group for a while and have decided to put this question on the net. When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth a try. With best regards, Klas Nordstr|m radar@cd.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 16:39:59 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Subject: NYNEX to Divest NY Telephone? Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu That's what the New York State Public Service Commission recommends: YORK-PHONES (Albany, N.Y.) -- State Public Service Commission report by general counsel recommends that Nynex divest N. Y. Telephone. There should be heaps more on this in tomorrow's New York-based newspapers. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: Please send an article as soon as you have specifics on Thursday. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 3 Oct 90 13:03:34 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon It has been many weeks since the telemarketing firm for the {San Jose Mercury News} has invaded my privacy. When I raised a big enough stink, the president of the firm removed my entire prefix (723) from the calling base. UPDATE: A friend in the 370 exchange (Campbell) finally received the call that broke the camel's back. He told them that he wanted no further calls on any of his lines (he has two). "Walking the organization" he finally spoke with someone who told him that the only way he could be assured of not receiving any further calls was to have them remove (you guessed it) the 370 prefix from the calling base. He said, "Fine, go for it." Then he was treated to the same reasoning that I got a taste of. "But, sir, if we remove that prefix then we will lose a lot of marketing contacts." In other words, the San Jose Mercury's right-to-telemarket supercedes an individual's right-to-privacy. Frankly, I'm getting tired of these people and am open to suggestions on how to shut them down permanently and legally. Anyone agree and have suggestions? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Admittedly, this problem may call for a special remedy. Generally, a taste of their own medicine works pretty well. You might try obtaining the home telephone numbers of various people in the organization for starters. Let us know how things work out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tc Peng Subject: Phone Ring Signal Date: 3 Oct 90 18:19:02 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Div. I am planning to do some experiments with my telephone set. Could anybody out there give me some pointers about how to detect the phone ring signal when there is an incoming phone call. Alan TC Penn voice : 1 408 553 3225 Hewlett-Packard email : tc@hpsctcd.hp.com Santa Clara, Ca. 95052 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 23:37:29 EDT From: Toby Loftus Subject: US vs. UK Modular Plugs Greetings! I have a friend who is going to the UK soon and has a modem which will support CCIT (?) protocols, which I understand are used in the UK. What I would like is any information on how to physically connect the modem to the UK outlets. I'm told that the UK has modular plugs, but ones quite different from US plugs. Any suggestions on how to attack this? Any company out there which supplies cords with a UK plug on one end and a US plug on the other? Thanks, Toby Loftus ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #710 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16093; 5 Oct 90 4:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14352; 5 Oct 90 2:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00180; 5 Oct 90 1:20 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 0:50:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #711 BCC: Message-ID: <9010050050.ab19638@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Oct 90 00:50:49 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 711 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [TELECOM Moderator] Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Jamie Saker] Latest 900-Number Scam Involves Fidonet [Tom Betz] 900 Special Value Deal [John Stanley] Norwegian Telephone Dials [Ole J. Jacobsen] Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages [Johnson City Press via Paul Schmidt] Music on Hold Anecdote [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 0:00:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Tens of thousands of MCI customers across the northeastern section of the United States had long distance phone problems Wednesday after a construction crew in Ohio sliced through a fiber-optic cable . The cable, which MCI spokesperson Doug Dome described as 'the backbone of our network', was cut around 9:15 Eastern time. Service was not fully restored until after 5:00 PM Eastern time. According to Dome, repair crews had to do major repairs to the cable involving a lot of splicing. About 50,000 calls were affected. Some were automatically re-routed, but according to Dome, the fiber cut was of the magnitude that many calls were simply lost, or left unprocessed at the point of their origin with some local telco. The affected states were Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of Michigan. Hardest hit was area code 216, including Cleveland. A construction crew employed by the State of Ohio was working on a bridge on the Ohio Turnpike near North Royalton, a Cleveland suburb, when 'a digging machine went down in the ground, grabbed the fiber-optic cable and yanked several feet of it out of the ground', said MCI. A repair crew from MCI's office in North Royalton was on location in fifteen minutes, and remained at the scene until late in the evening Wednesday. The overflow of calls from MCI on Wednesday went mostly to AT&T, with some of the traffic going to Sprint. The overflow caused the AT&T network throughout the northeast to be sluggish and very slow most of the day. ------------------------------ From: Jamie Saker Subject: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 06:52:39 GMT I am a systems operator for a leading midwest telemarketing corporation (inbound, outbound, 900 services, digital client services, etc.). One of our corporation's clients is US Sprint -- our Telemarketing Sales Representives place calls to residents regarding US Sprint service. After reading about the alleged orders/hookups made without the owner's approval with US Sprint, I was a little curious about how the entire process actually worked and what checks, if any, existed. Here, essentially, is what I found out: The order process: 1. TSR places call to resident. 2. TSR discusses scripted material with resident (the scripting is important, I've learned, so that the TSR does not promise anything which is untrue. I've watched a few TSRs get chewed out for deviating from the scripting by even a narrow margin.) 3. If the resident expresses interest in the product (such as US Sprint service). For most clients, the TSR then asks the resident if it is all right if they record the conversation from this point. This is important for several reasons: o It verifies that the resident did order the service. o It verifies that the TSR stayed with the scripting and did not promise anything beyond the scripting in order to place the order. o It serves as a tool for the verifications department to evaluate the tapes, comparing with the actual orders placed by the TSR (It does not look good if you had 20 orders on paper and only 9 on tape:) ) o It serves as a tool for the quality assurance department to monitor TSRs. 4. For many clients which do not have the recorded conversation, many of the TSRs stay late for "call backs" to residents who placed orders (according to the orders list). This information is also used for verifications. (This is what happened when my wife was called and ok'ed US Sprint service -- they called us back later in the evening to not only verify the order, but to ask if the representative was helpful, informative, etc.) 5. During this entire process, Quality Assurance personnel are monitoring the lines, making sure TSRs are polite, stick to scripting, and essentially are following the guidelines outlined for TSRs. 6. After the night's calls, the verifications department goes to work with the processed orders -- making sure that each order has gone through the appropriate proceedures required by that particular client. Incomplete orders get placed into a catagory for call backs. After this process is completed, the orders are sent out to the clients for their processing. From my informal "investigation," I drew the following conclusions which shed doubt on the "wrongfully placed orders" claims: o An order can NOT be placed without complete information (I run the systems -- a record with an empty field will not go through -- verifications will turn it back and representatives, usually supervisors, will make call backs. In this case, the TSR's identification is on the order and if it is determined that there was a problem on the behalf of the TSR, disciplinary actions are taken. Records without TSRs identification are also regarded as incomplete.) o TSRs are monitored on a regular basis -- this serves as an additional check, besides serving as a tool for maintaining quality calls. My informal survay places the ration of QA to TSR at 1-20 (again, this is not official but my own guesstimation). The QA individual I spoke with said that it is quite rare for a TSR to not be listened to during a shift's calls. o Any TSR sitting idle on the floor, filling out a form manually or entering it on the computer without talking with a caller would stick out like a proverbial "sore thumb." Supervisors are always walking about, checking on their people, providing assistance, and MAKING sure they are placing calls. For those of you who have talked with a US Sprint, MCI, AT&T telemarketer, you may recall all the questions they asked you. (I can only speak of US Sprint -- and there are several). The TSR would also have to: 1. Bypass all the checks (supervisors monitoring, QA, etc.) 2. Successfully guess your address and all other information the client requests. (I am not at liberty to discuss it.) 3. Bypass either the callback or the tape verification. In other words, it is extremely unlikely a TSR could successfully manage to place an order for a service the resident did not request. (I won't say impossible because there always seems to be an exception to every rule). I hope this helps to clarify matters on this debate. Again, my methods were informal and do not represent the opinions of my employer. I also do not represent US Sprint (however, our household is quite happy with the service and rates we have received so far.) Jamie Saker jsaker@zeus.unomaha.edu Public Relations Director C&DC Consultant jsaker@orion.unomaha.edu UNO Student Chapter of the "Go Hawkeyes!" JSAKER@UNOMA1 (bitnet) Assoc. for Computing Machinery ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Latest 900-Number Scam Involves Fidonet Date: 4 Oct 90 01:39:10 GMT Reply-To: tbetz@upaya.lilink.COM (Tom Betz) Organization: Greyston Business Services I found this on a Fidonet want-ads echo, and thought folks here might be interested. Anyone want to lay odds on how many suckers will call? To: All Message #: 5457 From: Jason Romero Submitted: 21 Sep 90 09:45:00 Subject: Great Systems Give-away!! Status: Public Received: No Group: FOR-SALE (29) RE: Great Systems Give-away!!! Hello!!!! Anyone who reads this ad, has the advantage of winning either of the systems noted below! If you follow the instructions below, you can potentially be an INSTANT GRAND PRIZE WINNER!!!!! The only way you can take advantage of this offer is to call 1-900-xxx-xxxx at 1200/2400 bauds / N-8-1. You will need to logon and create an account and leave him your real name, real home & work phone number, what bbs & the number of the bbs you saw this ad on, and real full address so that they can send the merchandise. The merchandise will only be sent if you qualify to be THE WINNER! The reason for calling the 900 number is so that it can help this company to offset the cost of the systems. So that when any of the systems have been won, that they can give more and more systems away. Give the sysop this security code: AFN108 Give the sysop that code in the feedback message, so that he will know that you have gotten your mail and are interested in receiving the GRAND PRIZE!!! For the contract to be legitimate, be expecting a voice call within 12 hours to 3 weeks for voice confirmation and furthur instructions. Depending on the response to this ad, I can guarantee that it will take no longer than 3 weeks to get your voice confirmation. The sysop will need to ask you a few questions. The score that you will need to have to qualify, will be told unto you at the begining of the call. After each question, you will be told your current score. You will then be sent a legal copy of all instructions, offers and the company address for your legal protection. These questions will not be hard at all. Anyone will be able to answer them. However, they will be vital to you qualifying for winning the BEST COMPUTER SYSTEMS AROUND! *********** GRAND PRIZE ********** Tell him in the feedback message also which grand prize you will be choosing. The sysop will need to know this when calling you voice. MAC SE/30 IBM Compatible 386-25 4 Megs of RAM 4 Megs of RAM 80 Meg Hard Drive 80 Meg Hard Drive USR HST Dual Standard 14.4k USR HST Dual Standard 14.4k TI (Postscript) Microlaser PS17/35 Panasonic (Postscript) KXP-4455 Sigma L-View 24 bit S-VGA Orchid ProDsnr II 16 bit 1MB RAM Sigma L-View Monitor (1024X768X256 clrs) Software: NEC MultiSync 3D Monitor Page Maker 4.0 Software: Laser Talk Windows 3.0 Superpaint Super/3-D 2 Page Maker 3.01 Ultrascript PC 2.0 + Both are worth a total value of: ***** $6476.45 ***** CALL ASAP TO SECURE YOUR GRAND PRIZE. OFFER VALID UNTIL 11/20/90 $2.00 1st Minute $1.25 Each Additional --- Opus-CBCS 1.13 * Origin: House Atreides (1:103/602.0) ---------------------- hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz Tom Betz - GBS (914) 375-1510 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending that piece of trash along to this high-class Digest! :) Seriously, Fido is a very good network, with a lot of dedicated and nice people. Its a shame someone has to dump on it like the above. Thanks for remembering to remove the actual phone number. I see no reason for this net to give them free publicity also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 03 Oct 90 23:15:43 EDT From: John Stanley <73765.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: 900 Special Value Deal Vote for 900 sleaze of the year: There is, apparently a recent horror movie that features a demonic doll named Georgie (I think). The ad goes something like: "Hi, I'm Georgie. Call me at 1-900-xxx-1DOLL and talk to me. And then, I'll CALL YOU BACK. (voice over: yes that's right, call now and after you hang up, Georgie will call you back. Only x dollars per minute, ask your parents if you are under 18, etc...)" What a wonderful use for ANI. And what a marvelous tool for torture. Older brother calls Georgie, hangs up. Georgie calls back, older brother lets five5 year old little brother answer phone. Or, goof gains access to other line in apartment complex, calls Georgie. Georgie calls back to unsuspecting single woman. Wow, semi-automated, anonymous harassment calls. Actually, now you no longer need to harass the operator to call you back to test the ringer. Hmmm, I wonder if this could be used somehow to find out the number of the line you are calling on? (p.s. In Syracuse are, 993 reaches an automated voice that speaks the calling number. It does not work on certain exchanges when you have a hunt group - it gives the main number.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 1990 10:25:26 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Norwegian Telephone Dials It is true that the Norwegian "Tastafon" telephones use the calculator layout. This was determined by Norwegian Telecom to be the most logical, ergonomic, whatever, precisely for the adding machine/calculator reasons cited in this Digest. The backwards rotary "Oslo" or "X" dial is used *only* within the city of Oslo. For the exchanges that don't (yet) support tone dialling, an old Oslo dial phone or a special new button-to-pulse phone must be used. Thus the Tastafon comes in three flavors: Touch-Tone, Standard Pulse, and Oslo Pulse, but note that the button layout is *identical* (calculator style) on all three. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040, USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: Paul Schmidt - Subject: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 17:23:07 EDT Organization: KK4FS - Free Speech Forum, +1 615 283 0864 for BBS From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Wednesday, October 3, 1990 HACKER ALTERING RECORDED PHONE MESSAGES By Leslie Loyd Associated Press Writer KINGSPORT, TN - A computer hacker is tapping into voice mail telephone messages and replacing them with explicit sexual descriptions, a telephone company spokesman said Tuesday. Phil Timp, a spokesman for United Telephone Co., said the company has received 70 complaints. "All of the sudden in the last two weeks, we've had a barrage of complaints," Timp said. "What the motive is we don't know... Obviously they're very disturbed." The FBI and Kingsport police were called in Tuesday to investigate. ... (portion omitted describing voice mail) ... "(Subscribers) are checking their messages and hearing this," Timp said. "Imagine if your mother called." He said subscribers frequently use the last four digits of their telephone number as their access code because it is easy to remember. But that also makes the code easy to break. Timp said subscribers should check messages and change access code frequently. Timp said someone is using a computer to tap into the system and figure out the codes. "It's a knowledgable user," Timp said. He said he doesn't know if any subscribers have canceled because of the explicit messages. "We're doing everything we can to make sure these people can continue their voice mail service," Timp said. "It's the first time we've had a problem to this degree," he said. The company began offering the service two years ago and has had a few isolated incidents like this. ------------------------------ Subject: Music On Hold Anecdote Date: Thu, 04 Oct 90 12:59:34 -0400 From: Steve Elias When I was working for a startup a few years ago, one of our investors called up and listened to some of the music-on-hold. We had a local rock station tuned in, and they picked that moment to run a raucous ad for a wet T-shirt contest at a local bar. The investor was not amused, but we sure were! :) eli ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #711 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18289; 5 Oct 90 6:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22143; 5 Oct 90 4:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06098; 5 Oct 90 3:26 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 2:33:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #712 BCC: Message-ID: <9010050233.ab02438@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Oct 90 02:33:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 712 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson U.S. International Dialling Update [John R. Covert] Blocking International Calling Card Calls From Payphones [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: US vs. UK Modular Plugs [Lon Stowell] Re: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI [Bill Ezell] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [P. Bloemen] Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 14:40:02 PDT From: "John R. Covert 04-Oct-1990 1724" Subject: U.S. International Dialling Update AT&T is expanding direct dial service to an additional twelve countries effective 15 October 1990: 222 Mauritania 242 Congo 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 261 Madagascar 269 Comoros and Mayotte * 355 Albania 674 Nauru * 677 Solomon Islands * 682 Cook Islands 963 Syria 975 Bhutan * U.S. Sprint has had direct dial service to these three countries for some time, but it did not usually work except for customers with direct Sprint circuits, since Sprint had never told Bellcore to send routing guide updates to the local phone companies. Recently, the local routing guide from Bellcore was updated to direct local switches to route all assigned country codes to the L.D. carrier of choice without regard to whether that location has direct dial service or not. In addition, COMSAT has opened 874 as "Atlantic West". Apparently most of this satellite's footprint overlaps 871, but they seem to have decided to split out the code. The following countries remain non-dialable from the U.S.: 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 239 Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego Garcia 249 Sudan 252 Somalia 500 Falkland Islands 53 Cuba (only the U.S. base at Guantanamo, 5399, is dialable from the U.S. Guantanamo is not dialable from other countries which can call Cuba, such as Canada.) 672 Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, etc.) 678 Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 680 Palau 681 Wallis and Futuna 683 Niue 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands) 690 Tokelau 84 Viet Nam 850 Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 93 Afghanistan 961 Lebanon 969 Yemen (Aden) (now united with Y.A.R., code probably retired) 976 Mongolia And finally, the following complete list of all assigned country codes (whether diallable or not) created from the official CCITT Recommendation E.163 is updated to include INMARSAT 874: World Numbering Zone 1 (Integrated Numbering Area) 1 Canada, USA including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique, Prune (Palm) Island, Union Island), Trinidad and Tobago* Note: Mexico locations with Zone 1 style area codes are a hack for use from the U.S. *only* and will be removed February 1991. *Trinidad and Tobago has been assigned code 296. No cutover planned. World Numbering Zone 2: Africa, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Aruba, overflow from other full regions. 20 Egypt 21 Integrated Numbering Area: Morocco (212 in service, also has 210, 211 assigned, but not used) Algeria (213 in service, also has 214, 215 assigned, but not used) Tunisia (216 in service, also has 217 assigned, but not used) Libya (218 in service, also has 219 assigned, but not used) 220 The Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mali 224 Guinea 225 Ivory Coast 226 Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) 227 Niger 228 Togolese Republic 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 232 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde 239 Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabonese Republic 242 Congo 243 Zaire 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego Garcia 247 Ascension Island 248 Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania including Zanzibar 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 259 Zanzibar (this code is assigned in E.163, but use Tanzania, +255 54) 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar 262 Reunion (France) 263 Zimbabwe 264 Namibia 265 Malawi 266 Lesotho 267 Botswana 268 Swaziland 269 Comoros and Mayotte 27 South Africa 295 San Marino (currently dialled via +39 541. No info on cutover.) 296 Trinidad and Tobago (currently dialled via +1 809. No cutover planned.) 297 Aruba (Autonomous from the Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 86) 298 Faroe Islands (Denmark) 299 Greenland Spare: 28, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294 World Numbering Zones 3 & 4: Europe except Soviet Union 30 Greece 31 Netherlands 32 Belgium 33 France 33 628 Andorra 33 93 Monaco 34 Spain 350 Gibraltar 351 Portugal 352 Luxembourg 353 Ireland 354 Iceland 355 Albania 356 Malta 357 Cyprus 358 Finland 359 Bulgaria 36 Hungary 37 Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR) 38 Yugoslavia 39 Italy 39 541 San Marino (has code +295 assigned, no info on cutover) 3966982 Vatican City 40 Romania 41 Switzerland 41 75 Liechtenstein 42 Czechoslovakia 43 Austria 44 United Kingdom 45 Denmark 46 Sweden 47 Norway 48 Poland 49 Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion) World Numbering Zone 5: Mexico, Central and South America + St. Pierre & Miquelon 500 Falkland Islands 501 Belize 502 Guatemala 503 El Salvador 504 Honduras 505 Nicaragua 506 Costa Rica 507 Panama 508 St. Pierre et Miquelon (France) 509 Haiti 51 Peru 52 Mexico 53 Cuba 53 99 Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base (located on Cuba, dialable only from U.S.) 54 Argentina 55 Brazil 56 Chile 57 Colombia 58 Venezuela 590 Guadeloupe (including St. Barthelemy and French side of St. Martin) 591 Bolivia 592 Guyana 593 Ecuador 594 French Guiana 595 Paraguay 596 Martinique 597 Suriname 598 Uruguay 599 Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, Bonaire) World Numbering Zone 6: Pacific 60 Malaysia 61 Australia 62 Indonesia 63 Philippines 64 New Zealand 65 Singapore 66 Thailand 670 Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan) 671 Guam 672 Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas I. Cocos I.) 673 Brunei 674 Nauru 675 Papua New Guinea 676 Tonga 677 Solomon Islands 678 Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 679 Fiji 680 Palau 681 Wallis and Futuna 682 Cook Islands 683 Niue 684 American Samoa 685 Western Samoa 686 Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands) 687 New Caledonia 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands) 689 French Polynesia 690 Tokelau 691 Micronesia 692 Marshall Islands Spare: 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699 World Numbering Zone 7 7 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics World Numbering Zone 8: East Asia + Marisat 81 Japan 82 Korea (Republic of) (South) 84 Viet Nam 850 Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 852 Hong Kong 853 Macao 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 86 China (People's Republic) 871 Marisat, Atlantic (East) 872 Marisat, Pacific Ocean 873 Marisat, Indian Ocean 874 Marisat, Atlantic (West) (Note: all 87x codes belong to COMSAT) 880 Bangladesh 886 Taiwan* Spare: 80, 83, 851, 854, 857, 858, 859 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 887, 888, 889, 89 *886 is not assigned to Taiwan by the CCITT. The CCITT notes that the People's Republic of China has assigned 866 to Taiwan. 88x codes are not to be assigned until all the other 8xx codes are gone. All the 87x codes are assigned to the Maritime Mobile Service. World Numbering Zone 9: Middle East, Indian Subcontinent 90 Turkey 91 India 92 Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 94 Sri Lanka 95 Myanmar (Burma) 960 Maldives 961 Lebanon 962 Jordan 963 Syria 964 Iraq 965 Kuwait 966 Saudi Arabia 967 Yemen Arab Republic 968 Oman 969 Yemen Arab Republic (assigned to Aden before unification, not in use) 971 United Arab Emirates 972 Israel 973 Bahrain 974 Qatar 975 Bhutan (new assignment, did not appear in 1988 Blue Book) 976 Mongolia 977 Nepal 98 Iran Spare: 970, 978, 979, 99 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Blocking International Calling Card Calls From Payphones Date: 4 Oct 90 23:49:42 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego I called the AT&T operator today to find out a way to get around the blocking of calling card calls to India from payphones (my university, like many others, does not allow any calls except local and 800 ones. It also does not allow access to long-distance companies through 10xxx and I was trying to find a way to call India from my campus). I was directed from international information (800 874-4000) to the long distance operator (00) to her supervisor. The supervisor told me that AT&T had nothing to do with the blocking and it was done "at the request of the country that was being called". To my incredulous reply that I couldn't believe that a country like, say, Liberia could ask them to block calls from a downtown Los Angeles payphone, she replied that "that was their prerogative". Now my question is - was she right or, was she just lying to me and it is the long-distance telephone company that blocks access? If she was lying, can someone give me an address in AT&T that I could write to complain about her. If she was right, could someone explain to me the reason behind other countries having the power to block access to them. I can understand not accepting collect calls where the called country would have to pay, but I would guess that in case of calling card calls it would be the long distance company that would suffer in case of fraud. p.s. - I don't know if Liberia *can* be direct-dialled - for some reason it was the first non-western country that popped to my mind! Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619)534-7894 [Moderator's Note: The operator/supervisor was absolutely incorrect. I've had them try to tell me they had nothing to do with the blocking and that 'the local telco requests the blocking...'. I mean, how stupid does AT&T think their average user must be? No matter who you call with some authority/knowledge in the matter at AT&T, you will never get the same answer twice, and you will never get a *truthful, candid* answer at all! You will never get anyone to provide you with a complete list of foreign countries/US areas redlined let alone even admit that they are illegally discriminating against a large number of telephone users based on their ethnic or national origin. You think for a minute and tell me if you think the management of a telephone administration in some country would say to AT&T, "We do not want to accept calls coming from your country which originate at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk Sts." The employees at AT&T you spoke with assumed you were stupid and would not consider doubting what they said. The truth of the matter is that AT&T corporate policy -- not the local telcos; not the telephone administration in some country, but AT&T exclusively -- says people from countries X, Y and Z are likely to commit fraud. Such gross generalizations are of course highly offensive to most Americans. And look at your situation: through no fault of your own, you are greatly inconvenienced and discriminated against while living in our country. I guess AT&T assumes no one can stop them, or make them obey the law. There are things that can be done: A consortium of attornies should file a class action suit against AT&T for starters. If AT&T refused to process your call when you were using their 'Universal Card' (universal that is, unless you are a native of India, Israel, Korea or a few other countries trying to call back to your homeland) then you can take your complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates credit granting practices in the USA, since AT&T unlawfully discriminated against you in the use of their credit card. You can also file an informal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, asking that AT&T be forced to completely document their redlining activies. You can, and definitly should also contact the telephone administration in affected countries and ask them to file a formal complaint against AT&T for its refusal to pass traffic to them in accordance with applicable international agreements. Mention that AT&T tried to blame *them* for not accepting your call! The Federal Trade Commission will also accept complaints about fraudulent advertising, in view of the fact that AT&T claims their Calling Card can be used to call *anywhere* in the world. When you contact the FTC, FCC or telephone administrations, carefully document your claim with the time, place and destination of your call. Include the names and titles of any employees of AT&T you speak with. Let's force the issue! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lon Stowell Subject: Re: US vs. UK Modular Plugs Date: 5 Oct 90 00:42:34 GMT Reply-To: Lon Stowell Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA You didn't mention the modem manufacturer, most of the ones with European versions of the same modem will provide cabling free or for a small fee..... Is your friend aware that it is not generally LEGAL to just plug a modem in to the wall in Europe? You may wish to try your local Codex sales rep,,,,they do sell modems overseas and can offer advice... (I don't work for them ... .just know they provide phone cords for THEIR modems. ------------------------------ From: Bill Ezell Subject: Re: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI Organization: Software Innovations, Inc. Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 12:49:59 GMT In <12575@accuvax.nwu.edu> nxh@meaddata.com (Nobuya Higashiyama) writes: >I found that there's a significant difference in call quality when >calling Japan from Dayton, OH between AT&T and MCI... We use AT&T for all of our international data calls, primarily to Japan, and a block reseller (Long Distance North) for all of our voice lines and domestic data calls. We found AT&T to be the only one that could provide relatively clean lines that didn't drive our Trailblazers to distraction, or at least low throughput. Bill Ezell Software Innovations, Inc. wje@siia.mv.com (603) 883-9300 ------------------------------ From: Phons Bloemen Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 4 Oct 90 09:13:13 GMT hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. Yes, PTT provides 06 blocking (but they charge 35 guilders for it, maybe to cover the 'lost revenues' for the exploitaints of chatlines etcetera But the tariff policy at least does not allow the famous 900 sleaze where the Americans are so proud of :=), but is still possible to get a HUGE phone bill if you are addicted to chat lines and 'babbelboxen'). But it is easy to do it yourself: In various electronics magazines, 'intelligent 06 and 09 (international dialing code from NL) filters' are presented, which can block out the expensive services, and pass the free ones. Totally self-configurable! I don't think the PTT block also blocks emergency 06-11 but maybe you have some more info on this. Hans Phons Bloemen +31 80 236769 phons@cs.kun.nl Sophiaweg 244 6523 NJ Nijmegen NL Uni.of Nijmegen,Dept of Computer Science ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Date: 4 Oct 90 03:42:45 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >>> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >>> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance The article Ramparts printed was a rather poor circuit for a traditional 'black box'. The 'black box' (as opposed to the 'blue' or 'red' boxes - each color cheating in some different way) was a VERY simple sort of thing. Rampart's circuit was a really stupid one that would give very low voice volume. The better circuits used a resistor (or better an inductor), a cap, a switch, and a battery, while their circuit simply used a resistor and a switch. People with subscriptions got their copies. Is that issue a collector's item worth much of anything? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #712 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16258; 6 Oct 90 4:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15085; 6 Oct 90 2:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10569; 6 Oct 90 1:39 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 1:20:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #713 BCC: Message-ID: <9010060120.ab08441@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Oct 90 01:20:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 713 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Brent Capps] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Macy Hallock] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Rolf Meier] Re: 202 Shrinks to DC Proper [Carl Moore] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Phydeaux] Re: More COCOTery [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Carol Springs] Re: Mental Harassment [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Another "Award" Call [Tad Cook] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 18:05:00 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer In Volume 10 : Issue 706, John Higdon wrote about switches 'listening' for an answer rather than using a default timeout. Here at RIT, we have a System 85. I had always assumed that it handled call supervision properly. One of the company's tech support department that I deal with has a policy of letting calls ring, until they can take it, so that callers don't have to pay to wait on hold. I spent four or five hours on hold one month, and was really surprised by the bill when it came (most of the calls were short after they finally answered. It turns out, the switch uses a 45 second time out. What a drag. Jeff Wasilko RIT Communcations ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 12:00:27 PDT From: Brent Capps Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer In article <12985@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >>[stuff about call transfer feature encountering a busy signal] > Are you really sure it works this way? Is a PBX involved? The rule > used to be (and STILL should be) that CFDA (call forwarding-don't > answer) should only be sent to a number in the SAME SWITCH. The > reason for this is the concern you expressed about the confusing > progress of the call and the posibility of the supervision getting > fouled up as the call is passed to another switch. [Moderator states that Ameritech call transfer is not confined to the same CO, LATA or even area code] When the CF feature is datafilled for a particular line on a Northern PBX/Centrex CO (and this probably holds true for AT&T equipment as well), the craftsperson has the option of blocking the second leg of the call from being extended along a trunk. The reason for this has nothing to do with supervision difficulty. It has to do with preventing Joe Blow from forwarding his work phone at SchmuckCo Industries to Grandma's number in Ulan Bator, then going home and dialling his work number, causing the call to be forwarded to Grandma's number while Joe only gets charged for a local call (SchmuckCo Industries eats the rest of it, because the forwarding party pays for the second leg). The same thing goes for the 3WC feature. Supervision is not 'passed along' to the next switch; instead the CF software on SchmuckCo Industries' PBX or Centrex CO determines that it needs to hold the first leg while originating the second leg to Grandma's number in Ulan Bator. When she answers, both legs of the call are condensed onto a three-port conference bridge. The PBX or Centrex CO continues to monitor the connection for billing purposes; when it sees a disconnect from either party it tears down the call. By the way, international calls can be selectively blocked by 3WC/CF as well. Brent Capps uunet: ...!kentrox!brent Kentrox Ind., Inc. pstn: (503) 643-1681 x325 Portland, OR "insert standard disclaimer here" ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 2:37:30 EDT In article <12719@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: >No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted >"my independent telco let a long-distance carrier slam me" >nor "my Bell telco stymied a slamming attempt on me." I've had several customers in GTE North territory slammed. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had a GTE rep call to confirm a carrier change. Ditto for Ohio Bell territory. Letters to OBT and GTE restricting carrier changes to requests submitted in writing only seem to work if you say "no one is authorized to change this service, but the owner/subscriber in writing." This apparently locks the account in the computer somehow. Any attempt to do anything short of this, e.g. "carrier changes only in writing" seem to just get a remarks line in the computer and carry little weight. Both MCI and Sprint were the slammers, plus one other smaller outfit (a reseller, I think) were involved. They lost anyway, because I program all my customers with "smart" system to automatically dial their chosen carrier's 10XXX code before all calls. They can't slam 10XXX! This also puts their intra-LATA calls on their selected carrier's bill, usually generating more savings. My customers with dumb key systems have had the usual slamming problems. I've also found a few Ohio Bell payphones that did not use the carrier shown on the front label ... the label usually said AT&T, but the carrier was actually someone else. On the subject of carriers (and other things): My personal favorite carrier is Litel. I've been able to call their technical people directly, gotten good cooperation, and fast response when needed. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and others could stand to learn a few things from them. GTE has wiped out Litel's access from certain CO's a few times (usually by killing a T1 feed or invalidating their 10432 carrier code in the CO database ... but that's par for the course with GTE. The fact is, for stone cold reliability, I have to say AT&T is still the carrier of choice. Their marketing and responsivness have improved, but the still need to learn from their competitors. I have to deal with too many vestiges of the "old" bureaucratic AT&T far too often, especially on special services circuit repair (tie lines, T1's, etc.) I should note that the largest percentage of our AT&T problems are actually Ohio Bell or GTE access link problems, but AT&T does not see to it that the job gets done ... they just refer it out to the telco and wait ... just like old times: finger pointing and bureaucracy. So ... we're back to the same old thing: the local telcos are the weakest link in the chain. Their monopolistic attitude from pre-divestiture is still evident in their customer service and repair practices. Their indifference toward slamming, poor repair/operating practices and anti-competitive tarriff are all symptoms of that attitude. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 4 Oct 90 13:39:06 GMT Reply-To: Rolf Meier Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <12978@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: >bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between >North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio >because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're >mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the >network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). Actually, if you decoded ulaw with an Alaw decoder, or vice versa, the difference is practically inaudible compared to the use of the proper decoder. However, the conversion is made anyway, in order to meet the quantization requirements. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 10:46:04 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 202 Shrinks to DC Proper This replies to Alan Parker . Please don't take my remarks too far out of context. Yes, I wrote: >Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local >calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. But I also wrote >Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been >created), and the above instruction is now: >1+301+7D With "the above instruction" meaning the procedure for LONG DISTANCE calls to the Md. suburbs (in text which you left out of your reply). >All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. Again, this refers to LONG DISTANCE calls into the suburbs. By the way, I wrote (in a different posting) that the leading 1+ is optionally available for use on those local calls in DC area across areacode boundaries. It is REQUIRED if you are calling long distance from the DC area, and is also required on certain local and extended- area calls which have been eleven digits (due to prefix duplication); those local and extended-area calls can reduce to seven digits after the dust settles from the changes just made. Please check to see if you can use 1+NPA+7D on the local call across the areacode boundary, and if you can use 1+NPA+7D on the local call within your own areacode (this is in the DC area). ------------------------------ From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 4 Oct 90 19:53:34 GMT Reply-To: Phydeaux Organization: This space for rent. >> 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. >I have tried this a few times with US West, and they NEVER give me the >number. I've only tried it at pay phones and I've *never* been turned down by the operator. Just tell them you're trying to call someone's beeper number and you need to know where you're calling from. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 40.55N 74.11W h:182 Market St. Saddle Brook, NJ 07662 201-845-0256 Home FAX! 201-845-0258 Send neat stuff! In the Bay Area from 10/5 to 10/14 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 4 Oct 90 04:25:51 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Oct 4 at 1:35, bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom > and TELECOM Digest readers, is a COCOT owner? I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. They include store owners, groups of investors, individuals who were sucked in on the latest (a few years ago) way to "cash in on the newest investment opportunity". If there were real telecom people owning COCOTs, you wouldn't find such widespread violations. Think about it: would you want to own something that was a technical abortion and a disservice to the public? What I am seeing in the COCOT biz is a few larger companies emerging that own many one-armed bandits. PayTel, ComSystems, etc., seem to be pushing the little guys out of the marketplace --- a lot like the long distance business. And again, I would be very surprised to see anyone at these companies give one jot or tittle about telecommunications. All they care about is that check from the AOS and the cash that falls out of the coinbox. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 4 Oct 90 20:17:06 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Here's why I agree with Mark Brader that blocking the coin slot on COCOTs is probably a bad idea: Outside 911 land, there is probably only one way to make a free emergency call from some (most?) COCOTs -- dialing the operator and asking to be connected to {police, ambulance, etc.}. Assume that the person in trouble knows the number of the appropriate agency and has a coin. Assume also that seconds count. Do you really trust that the operator whom the person reaches will make the appropriate connection as fast as the person could by dialing directly? Remember, this is a COCOT. Within 911 land, even at phones where free 911 works, many people don't realize that the call is free and will try to deposit a coin anyway. Seeing the coin slot blocked, and being too distraught (or too illiterate) to read the label, someone might give up on trying to reach help from that phone. I wouldn't want to be responsible for such a situation. Would you? Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all kinds of reasons not to do so. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 18:13:52 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Mental Harassment Two comments. Call the superintendent at home; it will be much more effective. Also, it might be appropriate if the net were to pull an "Irnalee" on the hospital. If we all called the hospital next monday and asked for Mr. Eaton. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: I've received no further correspondence on this saying the problem is continuing. As I noted yesterday, despite the bravado official attitude expressed by the hospital, and their seeming concern for the patient's rights, I suspect after they were called by the police and the victims, they were probably annoyed that their patient had gotten them into a embarassing mess. They probably went to see Mr. Eaton, raised cain and told him to stay away from the phone or he would get locked up and lose his pass to go outside, etc. If the problem continues, hopefully we will hear more about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Another "Award" Call Date: 4 Oct 90 06:32:50 GMT In article <12693@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > Does anyone know where 904-492 is? (Yes, I know it's somewhere in > northern Florida.) This is easy to find out. Just call "the operator" (to be safe, dial 102880) and say "I need name-place for 904-492." They will tell you what town it is. If your local operator seems confused, say "I need AT&T Inward, Route & Rates operator to tell me the place name for 904-492." Works every time. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 4 Oct 90 06:23:18 GMT In article <12619@accuvax.nwu.edu>, olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: > 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? Ted Potter, flying traffic reporter on KOMO in Seattle was using his cellular phone from his traffic spotting plane a few years ago. The FCC called him and told him to STOP. I don't know what regulation they cited. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #713 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10825; 7 Oct 90 3:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29882; 7 Oct 90 1:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02364; 7 Oct 90 0:45 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 23:55:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #714 BCC: Message-ID: <9010062355.ab24340@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Oct 90 23:55:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 714 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Garbage On Hold (was: Music on Hold) [Seth Breidbart] LD Carriers and Taxes [David Lesher] Re: Music on Hold [Dave Levenson] Re: FAX From ATTmail [Tom Lowe] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Jim Youll] Credit Card Codes [Patrick Tufts] San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Clayton Cramer] Re: Music On Hold [Lon Stowell] Re: 19-Inch Rack Standard [Donald E. Kimberlin] Intelligent Channel Banks With ANI Service [deadhead@cup.portal.com] ISDN/SS7 Software Wanted [Brent Capps] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Bruce Hall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Seth Breidbart Subject: Garbage On Hold (was: Music on Hold) Date: 6 Oct 90 14:05:27 GMT Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc / New York City, NY A couple of years ago, I called 47th St. Photo to find out their price/availability of some item. They put me on hold and played a local radio station. That station broadcast an ad for one of their competitors, listing a good price for the item I was interested in. Guess who I bought it from. Seth Breidbart sethb@fir.morgan.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: LD Carriers and Taxes Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 22:21:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I just got my initial bill for my WD-40 Sprint card use. I've been avoiding using it until the dust settled. It looks like I did the right thing; this bill has my $7.80 credit on it. It also lists the CO by name that I placed the call from; something MCI cannot seem to do. BUT! On my one call of $1.24 , Sprint charged me $.19 in federal excise tax. They also charged me $0.14 in FL gross receipts tax, and $0.40 state sales tax. Hmmmmm. Now, I happen to also have an MCI Expressphone bill in front of me. It too has a two minute call to the 216 as the sole entry. They charged me $.02 in federal tax, and $.01 state and local. (Their call cost me only $0.72 because of Around Town) They did NOT charge me sales tax. These rates jibe with the MCI/Southern Bill bill for my 10222 service. I called Sprint, and the CSR got a little flustered at the large dollar amounts involved ;_}. She promised to check into it, and I'll call again tomorrow. But my big question is: Should I be charged FL state sales tax? To expand the question: how do carriers handle people whose billing addresses are != service addresses? I have a second Expressphone account with a 301 (MD) number (long gone, but the account is still good) that I use for calls while in the District area. What tax should I be charged on IT? If it is billing state dependent, what state should I get my statement mailed to for lowest taxes? (I feel a litle sorry for the billing software writers. If you include a zillion different city/county/state tax rates, how do you EVER get the ruleset correct? Is it the COBOL version of sendmail.cf ;-?) wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Music on Hold Date: 5 Oct 90 02:04:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA I encountered a really sensible use for the MOH channel of an automatic call distributor a few years ago. (An automatic call distributor is the machine that tells you something like: "This is the XY&Z Company; all agents are busy. Please stay on the line..." and manages a queue of inbound calls until an agent is available.) I was calling the Washington DC Flight Service Station. A Flight Service Station is an office maintained by the FAA where a pilot calls to ask for weather information, and file a flight plan before departure. Today, a lot of this is done by dial-up computer access, but a few years ago, one did it all verbally. If the weather was super-good, or terrible, you'd always reach an agent (they're called briefers) right away. If the weather is so good that you don't need a briefing, it's easy to get one. If the weather's so bad you can't possibly complete your flight safely, nobody is calling either. It was one of those somewhere in-between days. I wanted to fly home from DCA (Washington National) to MMU (Morristown, NJ). The phone was answered something like: "This is the Washington Flight Service, all briefers are busy. While you're waiting, Washington weather this hour is three thousand scattered, ceiling six thousand overcast, visibility seven ... Baltimore, at 12:00, three thousand five hundred ... and so on. It included Richmond, Philadelphia, Charleston, and ever-widening circles from DCA, eventually including New York. By the time I reached the briefer, I didn't need to take his time asking for weather -- I'd taken notes while in the ACD queue. I just dictated the flightplan, wished him a good day, and headed for the airport. A real time-saver for all concerned. PS: Washington Flight Service no longer provides "aviation weather on hold" as of the last time I flew in that area. 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 ------------------------------ From: telecom@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 22:13 EDT Subject: Re: FAX From ATTmail The question was essentially "What is the relationship between AT&T Mail FAX and AT&T Long Distance as far as paying for the Long Distance Calls is concerned?" My understanding is that any non-tarriffed AT&T service pays the standard business rates for long distance calls. The services can sign up for any of the bulk discount plans such as Megacom 800, ProWats, etc, but they pay the same as you or I would if we were to set up such a service. True, the money goes from AT&T to AT&T, but it still is a cost of doing business for that particular service. Tarriffed services, on the otherhand, are different. I don't know how billing for these types of services work, but they are differnt. DISCLAIMER: These are not official statements from AT&T and may be wrong, but what can you do! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 5 Oct 90 02:36:51 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. >It has been many weeks since the telemarketing firm for the {San Jose >Mercury News} has invaded my privacy. When I raised a big enough stink, >the president of the firm removed my entire prefix (723) from the >calling base. >Frankly, I'm getting tired of these people and am open to suggestions >on how to shut them down permanently and legally. Anyone agree and >have suggestions? Frankly, I am tired of these idiots calling me at work, too. Yesterday my secretary got hit with a call that went something like this: (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner cartridges did you want this week?" (sec'y) "Toner cartridges? Western Supply? What is this pertaining to?" (caller) (louder) I'm calling about the re-order of toner for your copier. How many cartridges did you want?" (sec'y) (after asking me) "We don't normally buy toner from you." (caller) "Are you stupid? Just GO OVER TO YOUR COPIER AND TELL ME WHAT MODEL IT IS SO WE CAN COMPLETE YOUR ORDER" (sec'y) "We don't HAVE a copier." (caller) --click-- (We really DON'T have a copier here)... This is incredibly annoying, and the bastards don't even give you a chance to find out who they are. No idents given, even if you ask. We absolutely do not accept calls like this for more than the minute it takes to figure out that it's an idiot and okay to hang up on them. You might tell people to watch out for this ruse. We have had two or three calls like this in the past couple months (that I know about). ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Credit Card Codes Date: 6 Oct 90 16:48:20 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept >[Moderator's Note: Mother (NOT Clay's mother!) has always hated >{Ramparts Magazine} with a passion since back in the middle sixties >when the magazine announced they would print AT&T's credit card >check-digit formula in their next issue. Technological American Party (TAP), and its predecessor Youth Information Party Line (YIPL) did publish the credit card codes, several years running. BTW - does anyone know what became of TAP? ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 6 Oct 90 17:26:24 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA A local news story yesterday gave a disturbing example of how San Francisco Police Department sets the priorities on 911 calls. A young man leaving a night baseball game at Candlestick Park had car trouble, and found himself stranded in Hunter's Point. (This is a high crime part of San Francisco, for those of you at a safe distance from the madness of S.F.) He arranged a tow to a gas station, and started making arrangements to have someone come and get him. He was unsuccessful. At 1:30 AM, someone called 911 from the gas station payphone to report that his car was being broken into. In the middle of the phone call, the 911 operator heard a scuffle of some sort, and then the phone was hung up. Deciding that this was just a car burglary, the report was not considered an "A" priority call, and so it was one and a half hours before the police responded to it -- by which time the man and the car were gone. The father of the young man found the remains of his son, and the remains of the car, about four days later, while searching the area himself. Is there any sort of model for how 911 calls are to be prioritized? Wouldn't a scuffle in the middle of a call be reason to suspect that someone was being hurt? Or am I just dense? Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ From: Lon Stowell Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 4 Oct 90 23:16:39 GMT Reply-To: Lon Stowell Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Browbeating the poor dishonest sales critter doesn't really help much. Try notifying the VP or Marketing, Sales, or even the CEO as to why you are taking your business elsewhere. It does work ... surprising how many hotels are beginning to inject some sanity into their telephone rip-offs (er, make that "surcharges") when a few guests contacted the owner or franchisee. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 14:32 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: 19-Inch Rack Standard Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Responding to: Klas Nordstrom In Digest V10, Iss709, Klas asked: >When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? I cannot speak about international standards on this matter, but if you have need for specifications in the U.S., the Electronic Industries Association (EIA) published a standard many years ago. If my fading memory is correct, its title is RS-170. You can get a copy for a modest fee from: Electronic Industries Association 2001 Eye Street Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Tel: +202 457 49 66 Be certain to verify the number of the standard before buying on my say-so. The title of the correct one will be self-evident. As a matter of interest, you will be surprised to see how many manufacturers violate the standard in various details. If you have been engaged in rack-mounting equipment of various vendors, it is not at all unusual to have to perform some hacksaw, hammer and file surgery in the process. Klas further asked: >I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but >since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth a >try. I cannot speak to the issues of what corner of history this method came from, but have reason to believe it predates the Bell hegemony, dating back to days of peak Western Union influence. BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. I do know the US inch-dimensioned racks all have whole-unit metric equivalents. Because the inch-dimensioned racks do not actually come out to exact inches, the root might well be some European imports of antiquity that set the norm for the US. Any technology historians out there for this one? ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!DeadHead Subject: Intelligent Channel Banks With ANI Service Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 17:15:34 PDT Does anybody know if there is somebody that makes an intelligent channel bank that offers ANI (automatic number identification) feature for less than $10,000? I am looking for something like that to convert T1 to analog which can also pass the ANI digits as DTMF tones to the analog receiver. Thanks very much for any information you can offer - bruce deadhead@cup.portal.com (please email) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 09:53:40 PDT From: Brent Capps Subject: ISDN/SS7 Software Wanted I am looking for sources for off-the-shelf Q.921/Q.931 user side and/or SS7 software modules. They should be compatible with #5ESS, #4ESS and DMS-100; compatibility with DMS-250 and other vendors would be nice, but not required. The only vendors I'm currently aware of are Telenetworks in Pelaluma, CA and (maybe?) Teleos in Eaton NJ. Has anyone had experience with products from either of these two vendors? Is anyone aware of vendors apart from these two? Any help is appreciated. Brent Capps uunet: ...!kentrox!brent Kentrox Ind., Inc. pstn: (503) 643-1681 x325 Portland, OR ------------------------------ From: Dark Star Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 3 Oct 90 21:26:33 GMT Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA In article <12897@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!mcdcup!phil@ucbvax. berkeley.edu (Phil Weinberg SPS) writes: > In article <12637@accuvax.nwu.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle > (John Nagle) writes: >> It's time to lobby for some standardized way to find out your own >>phone number. With Caller ID, the other end can find out; it's >>annoying that you can't. It would be especially valuable if it were > I once tried to find out the number of an unidentified (untagged) pair > by calling the phone company (Pac Tel) and requesting them to tell me > what number I was calling from. I was refused this information, and I tried that once too with C&P Telephone in the Washington, D.C. area. I've noticed that Domino's pizza delivery has caller ID boxes, so maybe I should call them ask where I'm calling from ;-) Or if you have a lot of lines a trouble keeping them all straight. Not that we have *ever* misplaced a phone line :-), you could buy a caller ID for one phone in the facility and call it to find out! Bruce Hall Domain: bhall@pbs.org Public Broadcasting Service UUCP:...{uupsi,vrdxhq,csed-1,ida.org}!pbs!bhall Phone: 703/739-5048 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #714 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11760; 7 Oct 90 4:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10886; 7 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29882; 7 Oct 90 1:49 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 0:50:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #715 BCC: Message-ID: <9010070050.ab27820@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 00:50:08 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 715 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 [Jim Blocker] Re: USEnet PC Access [Christopher Ambler] Roam America [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Norwegian Telephone Dials [hullp@cogsci.Berkeley.edu] Portland, CT Non-ATT 800 Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts [Jeff Carroll] Re: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages [Bill Cattey] Response to International Calling Redlining [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 21:20:01 CDT From: Jim Blocker Subject: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 Recent talk in the Digest regarding the "censored" _Ramparts_ article on how to steal from Ma Bell made me remember a three-part series of articles that appeared in _73 Magazine_ (an amateur radio magazine) back in 1975. These articles were probably very damaging to TPC since explicit details were provided in one of the articles on how to bypass coin-phone and long distance charges. These articles were very well written and provided me with a lot of insight as to how telephones and the network operated back then. Even though none of the circuits presented in the articles could today be used to defraud TPC (except maybe the "Red Box" :)), they are still interesting from a historical perspective. The author of all three articles was Spenser Whipple, Jr. Here is a brief summary: April 1975: "Lifting Ma Bell's Cloak of Secrecy" described how a telephone set worked, various tones in the network (dial tone, busy, re-order, ringback), and DTMF generators. May 1975: "Inside Ma Bell" described how TPC detected "unauthorized" equipment on your line, how to defeat that detection, and "couplers" for attaching "foreign" equipment to your phone line. June 1975: "Inside Ma Bell" was the most damaging (at least to Ma Bell) of the three articles. It described some more "couplers", but of greater interest were the details on how to build a "Black Box", "Red Box", and the infamous "Blue Box", all devices intended to defraud TPC. The "Black Box" was merely a simple modification to a standard telephone set which allowed one to receive telephone calls without returning an "off-hook" indication to the CO. This worked back then because a "talk path" was established during ringing of the called telephone. By using a blocking capacitor and resistor, you could establish an AC connection (talk path) and talk in between ringing. Since no DC connection was made, the CO never detected the call being answered and the call wasn't billed to the caller. The "Red Box" was used to send coin tones and make free calls from pay phones. The June 1975 article gives two different designs -- one using many transistors, and the other using a couple of IC's. Even though modern-day pay telephones contain circuitry to determine if coins have actually been inserted or not, there may still be some pay phones where the "Red Box" may work. Two designs were given for the "Blue Box". Again, one using many transistors and the other using a couple of IC's. This particular color of box was the most powerful of the three in that it allowed one to send the famous 2600 Hz tone as well as the MF tones that were used for in-band signalling. In the proper hands, this box could be used to place long distance calls virtually anywhere at no charge. Since the telephone network has changed greatly since these articles were written, I doubt very much that any of this information could be used to defraud any local or long distance telephone company. Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. They make for some very interesting reading! Jim Blocker jim%kf5iw@rwsys.lonestar.org KF5IW ..!letni!rwsys!kf5iw!jim ------------------------------ From: Fubar Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 6:52:8 GMT Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. FSUUCP Version 1.1 release 5 is the most current version of FSUUCP. FSUUCP implements a UUCP/Usenet transfer protocol for MSDOS based machines. It comes complete with a full 7 window uucico, uuxqt with rnews and rmail capability, mail, readnews, postnews, uuq, uusnap, and news utilities like batcher and expire. Unlike other packages, FSUUCP implements these programmes as DOS commands directly. By putting the executables on your PATH, and setting an environment variable pointing to your configuration file, you can have UNIX mail and news on your MSDOS machine from the prompt, just like UNIX. To get a copy of FSUUCP: 1. Get it via anonymous FTP from polyslo.calpoly.edu. The file name will be fsuu11r5.zip. The current naming convention is fsuu[VV]r[R].zip, where VV is the version number in V.V format, and R is the release number. In this case, fsuu11r5 means version 1.1, release 5. Check occasionally on polyslo to be sure you have the latest version. 2. Mail us the $35 shareware registration and we will mail you back a disk with a registered copy. Please specify: A. 3.5" 720K B. 5.25" 1.2Meg 3. Mail us a self-addressed stamped disk mailer with either formatted 5.25" 1.2 Meg or 3.5" 720K or 1.44Meg disk. ***NO 360K DISKS!!!*** Registered users remain registered through all major revisions, or for a full year from time of registering, whichever is longer. That is, if you register your copy of 1.1, you are still registered through 1.2, 1.3, ..., 1.x, and all releases of these versions, and you are also still registered regardless of the version for a full year. Note that if you choose method 3, you DO NOT need to send the registration until/if you decide to use FSUUCP. And, as always, any bug reports or wishlists will be addressed for future releases. Coming Soon: FSBBS 2.0, Fubar Systems BBS with FSUUCP 1.x integrated into the package, plus local boards, DYM, games, files, textfiles, complete full-screen sysop utilities, termcap capability, scheduler, complete development package available, fully expandable, pant pant pant. All this, and shareware too. ADDRESS FOR SENDING DISK: Fubar Systems FSUUCP Request 1525 Mill #6 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401-2543 (805) 54-FUBAR -- BBS (FSBBS 2.0 prototype system) (805) 544-9234 -- Voice support For more information, send mail to: support@fubarsys.com ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.com ------------------------------ Date: 5-OCT-1990 02:30:31.13 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Roam America Does anyone who uses an "A" (non-wireline) cell system know what the codes are to activate/deactivate "Roam America" service? We are supposedly getting it in my home system, by no one seems to know anything about it. Also, I noticed that SNET Cellular (the Connecticut "B"/wireline carrier) has a program called "Roam USA". SNET customers who roam outside the SNET system get charged a *flat* $.60 per minute WHEREVER they go in North America, and NO DAILY ROAM CHARGES! (BTW, SNET also has Follow Me Roaming.) If their literature which advertises this is true, I might just get an account with them and use SNET for my FMR calls instead of GTE in San Francisco. (IE, forward my calls to the SNET number, and then use SNET for all my FMR calls ... after about $20 in daily charges a month saved I figure I can break even, not to mention the lower roaming rates!) Does SNET absorb the daily charges themselves, or do they have a special agreement which waives the daily charge for SNET roamers in a foriegn area? One final note: NYNEX/Boston cellular charges AIRTIME for activation and deactivation of Follow Me Roaming. Not only that, but since they charge a $3(?) daily charge, you get billed $3.75 PER DAY, even if you don't make or receive ANY real calls! I called GTE to complain about this, since their literature clearly states that all FMR activate/deactivate calls are free of charge, and they were very quick to remove all the FMR charges ... They said they would also check into this with NYNEX/Boston, since they never heard of this happening before. Well, if anyone at this point can remember my original question, please drop me a note...! :-) Thanks in advance, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Norwegian Telephone Dials Date: 5 Oct 90 06:53:24 GMT Reply-To: Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <13031@accuvax.nwu.edu> ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: >The backwards rotary "Oslo" or "X" dial is used *only* within the city >of Oslo. This "backwards" rotary dial is also used in New Zealand but not in Australia. INTERNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu BITNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.bitnet UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp ------------------------------ Date: 5-OCT-1990 02:45:51.58 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Portland, CT Non-ATT 800 Calls I recently tried calling that 800-666-6258 number from a payphone in Portland, CT. (203-342 exchange). The exchange 'sounds' like an older X-bar, (1Xbar?) but it may even be a really awful sounding 5Xbar. I dunno... Anyhow, it seems that you CAN'T dial a non-AT&T 800 number from Portland, at least from payphones. After I dialed 800-666-6258, I got a recording saying my call can't be completed. So I called the SNET operator, who tried it, and it didn't work either. She told me to call "00", so I got the AT&T Op., he said "Hmmm..we can't seem to complete this call ... I wonder ..." I then cut in an said "I think it's an MCI 800 number, is that a problem for you?", and the AT&T op said "Hmmm ... could be ... we have lots of trouble with some of the other 800 numbers." I tried calling MCI at 800-444-4444 (I think that was the number listed in the book...) but of course, that didn't work either... Just out of curiousity, I tried a Sprint 800 call (800-877, right?), and guess what? -- that didn't work either! Maybe all the other LD co's should get at least one AT&T 800 so that callers from such older exchanges can reach them! :-) Again, this was from a coin phone, so maybe this isn't a major problem if residence phones can dial MCI/Sprint/whatever 800 numbers properly. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts Date: 5 Oct 90 06:52:19 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12692@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeff Dalton writes: >I'm guessing that a tape recording of a phone conversation cannot be >used as evidence in court unless both parties are aware they're >being recorded. The law in Indiana used to be (and probably still is) that you had to have the consent of the person to whom you were talking in order to tape him, and had to provide the periodic beep to remind him that the tape recorder was running. I don't know what the law is here in Washington State; they don't print it in the phone book like they used to in Indiana. >But what if one end of the conversation is on a >speaker phone with witnesses listening. I would guess that the >witness could testify about the content of the conversation and the >person on the other end of the phone wouldn't have to know someone >else is listening. >Does anyone know anything about this? Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use, and should thus be warned that he is talking to the world and not just to one person's right ear. It would be fairly easy, I'd think, to establish that in court (though I'm not a lawyer). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 1990 15:41:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Cattey Subject: Re: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages Making your personal access password easily guessable is a mistake. Users should be educated by the vendor to choose better passwords. The problem in Kingsport TN will go away when everyone picks reasonable passwords. They should consider themselves lucky... According to friends of mine who have been there when voice mail was installed at the compannies where they work, there are three common policies that make it particularly easy for crackers to do much worse things to voice mail than changing message text: 1. The installing companies often keep the same master password for all the systems they install, and never change it. 2. They never disconnect the maintenance console dial-in. That's right! There are voice mail systems that allow anybody who knows the telephone number to dial in and modify it. 3. The installing company insists on keeping secret how simple it is to change the phone system with a few simple commands. I hope that voice mail system providers and purchasers begin QUICKLY to take the same precautions they take with their other computer systems: 1. SECRET passwords. (both at the user and system levels) Changed often. 2. Physical security: Don't have a publicly accessible maintenance console. At the very least, leave it un-plugged until you NEED to receive an AUTHORIZED remote maintance call. 3. A hierarchy of commands and privileges so that someone getting in to the maintenance programs still needs higher levels of privileged (discretionary) access to do things. wdc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:40 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Response to International Calling Redlining Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Responding to: Ravinder Bhumbla (and Telecom Moderator) continuing a long and frustrating thread about blocking international card-charged calls from payphones, Mr.Bhumbla (in Digest V10, Iss712) says: >I called the AT&T operator today to find out a way to get around the >blocking of calling card calls to India from payphones.... And goes on to describe the frustration and obvious untruths that he, like many must be receiving daily about the matter. Our Moderator replied at some length about the wrongness of this, and suggests that it is time some real action took place, saying: >...how stupid does AT&T think their average user must be? No matter >who you call with some authority/knowledge in the matter at AT&T, >you will never get the same answer twice, and you will never get a >*truthful, candid* answer at all! ... and suggests some public action, concluding with: >When you contact the FTC, FCC or telephone administrations, carefully >document your claim with the time, place and destination of your >call. Include the names and titles of any employees of AT&T you speak >with. Let's force the issue! PAT] I wholeheartedly agree with consumer action that gets corporations to pay attention, and here suggest all the participants in this forum have a tool they may not know of. It is the Internet gateway to public E-Mail. On the AT&TMail and MCIMail networks, some very influential people have listings. Here they are: Username: !reallen NumericID: !6284486 Name: Robert E Allen Company: AT&T Address: Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Phone: +1 201 221 5151 MCI ID Name Organization Location 109-0242 William McGowan MCIC Washington DC No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. And, as our Moderator advises, ALWAYS ask those Three Little Words: "What's Your Name?" It can work wonders. If you get a refusal, then make note of the time, date, and number at which you got an employee who refused to identify themselves and put that in your report. It could be more powerful than having the name! [Moderator's Note: The first of the two addresses given above would be addressed from the net as 'reallen@attmail.com'. The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what happens and post the responses received. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #715 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12729; 7 Oct 90 5:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04923; 7 Oct 90 3:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10886; 7 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 1:59:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #716 BCC: Message-ID: <9010070159.ab29469@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 01:59:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 716 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Bob Yasi] Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Jim Youll] Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Mike Verstegen] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Which Came First? [Edward Floden] Re: Which Came First? [David E.A. Wilson] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File] [John Higdon] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [Colum Mylod] Re: Phone Tree Hardware [Lance Ware] Re: MCI Call Blocking [B. J. Herbison] Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [John Higdon] Re: Music On Hold [Maurice R. Baker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 20:13:16 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp, San Diego In article <13028@accuvax.nwu.edu> unocss!zeus.unomaha.edu! jsaker@uunet.uu.net tells about his experiences in a telemarketing organization. He describes two verification procedures, tape recording of conversations and call-backs to verify orders placed. I have never been asked if it is OK to record a conversation (except AT&T sometimes answers a call with "this call may be monitored [not recorded BTW] for quality purposes" or something like that. No, a telemarketer never spoke about recording anything. I can't speakk to the verification because I've never changed LD service in response to a telemarketing phone call. -- Bob Yazz -- ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 22:16:18 GMT Reply-To: Jim Youll Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. In article <13028@accuvax.nwu.edu> unocss!zeus.unomaha.edu! jsaker@uunet.uu.net (Jamie Saker) writes: >In other words, it is extremely unlikely a TSR could successfully >manage to place an order for a service the resident did not request. >(I won't say impossible because there always seems to be an exception >to every rule). Fine. I haven't said a word up to this point, but am interested because it happened to ME a few months ago... One day I came to work and had US Sprint for my LD carrier, and a $5 charge on my bill for the change... I vaguely remember talking to a SPrint rep a few weeks before I realized what had been done, and distinctly said "NO. I DO NOT WANT YOUR SERVICE." Got it anyway. I think it happens a lot ... The supervisor was difficult, but put the change-back through. BUT ... I had to yell and insist on a conference call between Sprint, the local telco's manager who could arrange to take off the service-change charge, and another person. It was a mess. ------------------------------ From: Mike Verstegen Subject: Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins Date: 4 Oct 90 15:53:31 GMT Organization: Domain Systems Inc., WPB, FL decoste@iro.umontreal.ca (Ronald Decoste) writes: >We are also experiencing transmission errors with are dialup lines >since our new phone switch went into operation. Things were so bad >that we had to revert to direct lines from the CO until a solution is >found. >The switch (multiple Meridian SL1's) is connected to the DMS-100 by a >fiber DS-3 link for aapprox. 350 trunks. >Brian Kantor's article suggests that some jumpers must be set properly >on some interface cards. Does anyone know more about this ? Which >jumpers on what cards for the DMS and for the SL1 ? I have experieced this problem when a T-1 has been loop timed at each end of the circuit. In timing distribution, one end (the "better" timing) must always be master and the other end loop (or "slave") timed. By definition the telco will be the master timing source. If your DS-3 is terminating into an external M13 multiplexer, check the timing connection between the M13 and the T-1 terminations on the SL-1. The telco fiber DS-3 should time the M13 mux and the M13 will in turn provide master timing via the T-1 to the SL-1 which should be loop timed. If the the SL-1 is master timed (or the T-1 side of the M13 is loop timed) you will see slippages that will cause data transmissions problems. If the DS-3 terminates directly into the SL-1, the integrated interface probably has the equivalent options settings, either in hardware or software. Mike Verstegen Domain Systems, Inc Voice +1 407 686-7911 ..!uunet!comtst!mdv 5840 Corporate Way #100 Fax +1 407 478-2542 mdv@domain.com West Palm Beach, FL 33407 ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 6 Oct 90 01:55:05 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12979@accuvax.nwu.edu>, aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) writes: > The current version of the standard has provisions for using 6 PRI > B-channels together (called an H0 channel, 384 Kb/sec) and using 24 > B-channels together (H11 channel, 1.536 Mb/sec [this is AT&T's number, > don't know why it's not 1.544Mb/sec]). AT&T offers a "Switched 384" The 1.536 Mb/sec is 64kb x 24. The oft used 1.544 figure includes the additional 8kb for the framing bit. Each 1/8000 of a second, the line passes 192 bits of data (24 x 8) + one framing bit for a total of 193 bits. Other than keeping frames in sync and defining the A and B signaling frames (or more generally, where one is within the super-frame format), the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of network managment data. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 21:23:41 CDT From: Edward Floden Subject: Re: Which Came First? In-Reply-To: message from julian@bongo.uucp > Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, > TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder > what the number pad was like. That was the TIE SmartSet. And the keypad was the telephone-standard 1-2-3, not the calculator 7-8-9. Fortunately, I rarely needed to use the calculator feature when I had one of those turkeys (the microswitches used in the hookswitch circuit failed too often, IMHO). UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!edward ProLine: edward@pro-harvest INET: edward@pro-harvest.cts.com BIX: edward2 ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!edward@nosc.mil CIS: 73220,1624 BIT: edward%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil America Online: Elseware ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 06:07:09 GMT I saw a Telecom Australia Card phone the other day. It has 2 keypads - one is a membrane type to enter your PIN for the credit/debit card and the other has real push buttons for dialing the phone number. Both had 123 on the top. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File] Date: 6 Oct 90 10:49:24 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Carol Springs writes: > Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all > kinds of reasons not to do so. Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending instrument. There were two of the older, particularly greedy and offensive COCOTs at a corner that I pass daily. I have placed stickers, called the owner (and talked to his machine), and even called Pac*Bell. All to no avail. Recently, I noticed that the handsets had been ripped off and the upper part of the phones had obviously been in intimate contact with a sledge hammer. Somehow I doubt that these devices would, in their present condition, serve well in an emergency. Better stickers than the capital punishment for phones metted out by some of the less gentle members of society. Then again... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 5 Oct 90 10:43:17 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands Minor corrections and a bit extra to the article <12935@accuvax.nwu.edu> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) now follows. Stay on the line! >if it begins it costs >06-0... free >06-11 15 to 30 c/min equivalent of 911 >06-320... 50 c/min. 06-340... same 06-350... same >06-321... 3 to 40 c/min >06-399... 3 to 40 c/min >06-4... free >06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones > weekend: 62 c/min >06-8... 3 to 40 c/min >06-9... 50 c/min. Generally, dial-a-sex type calls are 06-3 ... while "respectable" if costly calls such as weather reports are 06-9 ... The confusing bit is that the number length varies from short (0611) to medium (060402) to very very long (see below!). >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. According to the 'phone book I have, residental blocking IS available, cost is a once-off f35 (‾US$18). PBX blocking cuts off any 06 numbers, but PTT-blocking just cuts 06-320, 06-340, 06-350 and 06-9. Bad idea to cut 06-11 even if it costs. How many countries charge for calls to their emergency numbers? I envision someone in a panic at a payphone while some car victim is bleeding and the caller madly searching for coins so that an emergency call can be made. One aspect of the 06 service is that all mobiles are grouped under 06-5... numbers. This includes carphones, pagers, cellular. A number I came across for a high-pressure cleaning firm must count as the world's most-clicks call for pulse-dialers. Don't call it unless you want to do business. It is given in a guide as "06520000000", which makes 93 clicks total! Yes, that's seven zeros on the end. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware " Subject: Re: Phone Tree Hardware Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:49:46 GMT A company called Magnum Software makes a nice voice mail system for the Macintosh. They have two models, one which can handle outdail, appointment scheduling, telemarketing etc, as well as voice mail. And one which only handles incoming calls, but has unlimited voice mailboxes, etc. There is quite a price difference and the cheaper one is said to be expandable, later. I am not sure if the cheaper one includes it, but the more expensive one can send and store PAX (Video Phone) data. Thier number is 818-700-0510. You can call and play with it after 5 pdt at 818-701-5051 Lance *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ulta.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:37:40 PDT From: "B.J. 05-Oct-1990 1122" Subject: Re: MCI Call Blocking On 7 September I sent in an article about MCI call blocking from the {Boston Globe}, which was published in Volume 10 : Issue 626. At the end of the article I wrote: > I called MCI customer service (1-800-444-4444) and and was told that > 16 countries are blocked. They will be sending me the list of the > countries. > [Moderators Note: I doubt they will be sending you anything. AT&T > has told me twice they would send me the list of origin/destination > places they block, and they have yet to provide a list. This is an > illegal, very discriminatory practice -- both by AT&T and MCI. ... Well, MCI took so long to reply that I was starting to believe the Moderator. However, I just received a letter dated 26 September 1990 (19 days after I called) with the following information: Countries blocked for calling card calls are: Bangladesh Malaysia Brazil Mexico China Morocco Colombia Pakistan Dominican Republic Peru Ecuador Senegal Egypt Sri Lanka India Yemen If you need any more info in blockage, please call us. 800-444-3333 The information was handwritten on the back of a generic form letter apologizing for a problem and it has the name of the customer service representative I talked to. Either MCI is willing to publicly admit to the selective call blocking, or this representative wasn't properly trained. B.J. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along the answer you received. Now let's see if anyone from AT&T responds with their listing. And if they do? It still does not lessen the illegality of it, nor for MCI. You cannot take a group of people, based on their ethnic origin, for example Chinese or Egyptian people -- and who, after all, would be the most likely users of international calls to those countries? -- and say or imply to them "you cannot be trusted to make a call to your home country on credit; you are likely to defraud us." And please, AT&T, if you bother to respond, no bulljive about how the local telco in San Fransisco is the culprit, or how the telephone administration in China says they will take calls from the USA made on calling cards from AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Date: 5 Oct 90 11:15:17 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon While I think someone mentioned that a black box is ineffective for ESS and digital offices because an audio path is not created until the called line supervises, no one has mentioned AT&T's defense against muting boxes. An unsupervised AT&T call has audio in only one direction (to the caller). This is one reason for the sudden appearance of automated referral machines. A conversation with an intercept operator is impossible unless the far end supervises. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Have you noticed how, on the rare occassions when one gets a live intercept operator somewhere that callers via most OCC's can't speak with the operaor to answer the question 'what number did you dial?'. The operator will then invariably play a recorded message to you which says "under some circumstances, customers of other long distance companies may not be able to speak with the local telephone company operator. Please dial your long distance operator for assistance." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 14:35:29 EDT From: Maurice R Baker Subject: Re: Music On Hold Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. OK ... how's this for an idea: If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) should give you the choice of: Silence [maybe a brief reassurance every minute or so that you're still connected, for the faint of heart.] Perhaps a small selection of different music types [i.e., radio stations/Muzak/etc. that play country, rock, easy listening, classical.] A recorded sales pitch or description of the product line Leaving a message for call back (if necessary) when someone is available. [Sure beatshaving to wait ten minutes for the "1st available agent" when all you want is to request a catalog!] -etc. etc. etc.- ... all selected by pressing a Touch-Tone digit. Maybe they could even use the stats on the music type requested to determine demographics of callers, and that sort of thing (just an idea) ... could help them choose where to place future advertising, et al. Any comments? M. Baker homxc!jj1028 or jj1028 at homxc.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #716 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25178; 7 Oct 90 18:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06214; 7 Oct 90 17:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29731; 7 Oct 90 15:58 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 15:02:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #717 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071502.ab30937@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 15:02:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 717 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX Settlement [Eduardo Krell] Area Codes in Numerical Order [Sandy Kyrish] Sprint Residential 800 -- Free Signup [Steve Elias] Re: 19" Rack Format [Thomas J. Roberts] A New Way to Get Slammed [Ed Greenberg] Australian Area Code 14 or 014 [Carl Moore] Protocol Analyzers For RS-232 [Alan Medsker] Call Forwarding, Unlimited Service [Jerry Durand] Reminder: Number of Prefixes in 202 and 703 [Carl Moore] Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Steve Forrette] A Positive Use For Caller ID [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:05:22 EDT Subject: NYNEX Settlement Excerpts from {The New York Times} and AP news articles. As part of a consent decree between New England Telephone, New York Telephone and the FCC, the two companies will make a voluntary $1.4 million payment to the US Treasury and cut their long distance rates by $35.5 million. The $35.5 million is the interstate portion of the $118.5 million alleged overcharges for equipment, supplies and services paid to Materiel Enterprises Co., an unregulated subsidiary of NYNEX, from 1984 to 1988. The $35.5 million rebate will not affect local phone rates and will be made within 30 days. The $1.4 million payment to the Treasury will be paid by NYNEX shareholders and will not affect telephone rates. This agreement ends one of several pending federal and state actions against NYNEX, which is also the focus of investigations into parties held in Florida for NYNEX employees and vendors which included prostitues. NYNEX denies any ratepayer funds were used in those conventions. As a result of all this, the New York State PUC authorized a study into whether NYNEX should be forced to divest New York Telephone. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:31 EST From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Area Codes in Numerical Order Does anyone have an up to date list of U.S. area codes in numerical order? My 1983 list is, of course, laughably out of date. Thank you. Sandy Kyrish MCI ID 320-9613 [Moderator's Note: A file in the Telecom Archives entitled 'areacode.guide' is up to date as of last year. To access it, use ftp commands. 'ftp lcs.mit.edu'. I've already sent Sandy a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint Residential 800 -- Free Signup Date: Fri, 05 Oct 90 10:37:47 -0400 From: Steve Elias Sprint now officially allows residential customers to sign up for 800 service. $10 per month plus their normal long distance rates for calls. They are waiving the signup fee for anyone who signs up during the next three months... eli ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:16:55 CDT From: Thomas J Roberts Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <13001@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by radar@cd.chalmers.se: > When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? As this is a telecom newsgroup, I feel compelled to mention that AT&T equipment racks [5ESS(Tm)] are usually 22.5" wide. NTI racks can be 24" or 44" (?) wide. [These are the widths of the card cages, overall width is somewhat larger.] "The best thing about standards is that there are so many of them." Author Unknown Tom Roberts AT&T Bell Laboratories att!ihlpl!tjrob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 10:26 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: A New Way to Get Slammed... ... or Marketing Out of Control. I found the following comment on Hamnet on CompuServe... "Mark, I have been trying to leave you a reply for two days now but this stupid call waiting that the local phone company gave to everybody free for a month keeps kicking me off if someone calls my number. I plan to try to have it removed from my line tommorow for the third time!..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 14:12:27 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 Very recently in this Digest was published the following number which would be dialed from the Netherlands: 096-114-112 ... where I am told (via the Digest) that 09 is the international access code in the Netherlands. I tried dialing 011-61-14112 from the U.S., and the call was intercepted (could not be completed as dialed) before leaving the U.S. My list of Australian area codes includes 1 for "Telecom services". And from a little further back in this Digest, I had 0014-881-877 listed for Sprint access from within Australia. Any clarifications on the above? ------------------------------ From: Alan Medsker Subject: Protocol Analyzers For RS-232 Date: 5 Oct 90 18:24:32 GMT Reply-To: Alan Medsker Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc., Marlboro, MA I'm on the market for a fairly inexpensive ($1K) RS-232 analyzer that will let me see, for instance, what a PC is sending to a modem and vice-versa, as well as parity, baud rate etc. Anyone have any experience with any of these types of devices? Recommendations? Thanks in advance, Alan Medsker Viewlogic Systems, Inc. Voice: (508) 480-0881 293 Boston Post Road West Fax: (508) 480-0882 Marlboro, MA 01752 Internet: amedsker@Viewlogic.COM cc:Mail: Alan Medsker at Viewlogic CI$: 76376,662 BIX: amedsker 2 Meters: WB0SQR My opinions, of course. And don't hold me to them. ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!JDurand@uunet.uu.net Subject: Call Forwarding; Unlimited Service Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 10:41:26 PDT I was just informed by my GTE rep that as of 3/10/91 all local business calls will be billed at $0.04 for the first minute and $0.01 for every minute after. We will get the notices in our bills around the first of the year. The exact amount billed may change by the time they announce it, they are still re-working the ZUM charges. I also found out that you can't get distinctive ringing on any line in a hunt group, so I can't make my last line both a FAX and voice line (I have a FAX switch, it only works about 70% of the time). I asked about forward on busy like my GTE Mobilnet number has, but the rep. said that is only for Centrex customers and doesn't work right on business lines at the moment anyway. Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com, 408 356-3886 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:24:12 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Reminder: Number of Prefixes in 202 and 703 The recent changes in the DC area do not create a new area code, although the {Washington Post} article (cited earlier) treats these changes somewhat like an area code split. However, the number of prefixes in 202 (DC) and 703 (Va.) area codes is affected: 1. Pentagon, physically in Virginia even though it was in area code 202, is now in area 703. 2. Md. and Va. suburbs have been deleted from area 202. Long distance calls to those areas must use area code 301 or 703 as the case may be. Will whoever keeps count of prefix usage look into this? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:50 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL It seems nobody on the net has announced that the PBS program "Nova" opened its new series with a program titled, "Computers, the KGB and Me." This hour-long "Nova" segment features Cliff Stoll himself describing how he, an astronomer by profession, fell into discovering some German hacker/phreaks dialing into Internet computers, declaring themselves "Superuser" and then linking out into MilNet to scan files all over the country for anything the KGB might find of interest. The episode is quite good in that Stoll and the actual participants describe how they set traps for the Germans and got the calls traced all the way back to the source, finally getting four Germans arrested and convicted for using international dial-ups tobreak and enter into U.S. government data bases. In addition to giving a sense of how the international dial networks for voice and data function, its presentation shows how what Stoll did amounted to the classic elements of a detective story, with a true computer-era gumshoe on the job. I can recommend it highly for all to look into their local PBS listings immediately, as "Nova" does get rerun on the secondary PBS channels for a week or so after last Monday's (10/1) premiere showing. It is an excellent one-hour summary of Cliff's book, "The Cuckoo's Egg," and those who can tape it will likely find it useful for presentation to bosses who have a difficult time understanding computer communications security matters. Once again, it is the current segment of "Nova" on PBS titled, "Computers, the KGB and Me." It's worth looking for and taping if you must. [Moderator's Note: It aired here in Chicago this past week, and is worth a look if it hasn't yet been shown in your community. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 6 Oct 90 02:48:35 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Oct 6 at 1:20, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT There is only one thing he can be using if the reports are broadcast directly and that is a "Part 74" frequency. Part 74 is the section of FCC rules and regs that covers use of broadcast aux frequencies. And the rules are quite explicit that anything meant for direct broadcast must be sent on one of these channels. There are such channels in the 150 MHz and more popular 450 MHz region. The 950 MHz channels that radio broadcasters use to relay program material to transmitter sites also fall under Part 74. Just as someone was busted in the Seattle area for using cellular for this purpose, so was a station in the Bay Area chastised for using the "business band" for traffic reports. The problem is, in metro areas there aren't enough Part 74 frequencies to go around. And even though there are several traffic reporting services that are used by many stations, they must use a coveted Part 74 frequency (whose license is actually held by a designated broadcaster, since only broadcasters can be granted licenses for these channels). Another problem is that use of a frequency from aircraft wipes out its reuse over a vast area. Broadcasters spend many hours a month coordinating the use of these frequencies. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 03:47:03 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File The concern raised by several people regarding the possible affect on public safety caused by the use of these stickers brings up another issue -- the public safety affect of COCOTs in general. As most people who have COCOT experience will tell you, often you will approach a COCOT, and it will be out of order. Totally out of order. You pick up the handset, and there's no dialtone. Or, there is dialtone, but you can't use it, because it's "local" dialtone, and when the phone goes offhook (from the CO's point of view) to place your call, the line is dead. Very very rarely have I ever seen this the case with a Pacific Bell payphone. Now what if there's an emergency? You go offhook to dial 911, and the phone is comletely dead! Now, keep in mind, that before the advent of COCOTs, it's likely that there was a *real* payphone at this location that always worked. COCOTs weren't just added to previosly-vacant locations, but (in the words of a famous Digest contributor) there has been a "wholesale replacement" of Bell payphones. Ones that were always working to serve you in case of emergency. So, isn't the current state of affairs in COCOTery a public safety issue? Anybody that's cocerned about the amount of damage a few Digesters can cause with stickers should be for the total ban of COCOTs they are today, because of the affect on public safety. Or, perhaps, a tariff clause which states that each COCOT operator must see to it that their fleet of payphones maintain the same percentage of "uptime" that Bell payphones have, or lose the right to be in the payphone business? Hey, maybe this is something we could get our representatives and the law enforcement community fired up about. [Moderator's Note: I did not mention it at the time, but this was my thinking about COCOTS in response to the various messages saying that covering the coin slot posed a potential safety issue. In theory, perhaps yes, but in actual practice COCOTS are most unreliable anyway. Here in Chicago, a lot of them (most of them?) are maintained in dreadful condition; the owners seem to milk them as long as they can then either abandon them or sometimes install a new one. A sticker covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 09:02 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: A Positive Use for Caller ID Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL All the discussion of Caller ID seems to focus on negative perceptions of its use with weak, repeated examples of its "value," the inward telemarketing example being most common. It was refreshing tosee the following in "Communications News" for September. It shows how at least one firm has made use of what must be MCI's Caller ID on 800 numbers, improving service to its customers and its competitive stature: "CALLER ID WITH 800 NUMBER CUTS NO-SHOWS "PayLess Car Rental has increased its revenue and cut the number of no-show renters with an 800 number and automatic number identification. "PayLess rents from off-airport sites in 90% of its 120 major-cioty locations. Problem was, as its renters arrived at the airport, rather than wait for a van for a pickup, they would rent from one of the on-airport companies instead. "That left PayLess with a reserved car but no one to take it. It was losing about one in three customers that way. "Now, when renters arrive at the airport, they dial an 800 number and are connected immediately with the nearest PayLess agent who sends a pickup van right away. "The 800 number sends the call to Communications Management and Information (CMI) in Atlanta. The caller's number is delivered as well and run through the CMI database. Based on area code and prefix, the call is" (obviously forwarded to and ... doggoned inaccurate press!) "answered at the nearest PayLess office. "Mike Harley of Gulfport, Fla.-based PayLEss says the number of no-shows is down about 25% so far. Walk-in business hasn't been affected yet, but the company plans to advertise the number more widely." --------- Nice to see someone coming up with a visible way to improve customer service; surprised they didn't make the point of having one convenient, coin-free nationwide number as well. Those here who are car renters know the hassle of trying to get to a local off-airport car rental company office with a different number in every city. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #717 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26263; 7 Oct 90 19:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27389; 7 Oct 90 18:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06214; 7 Oct 90 17:01 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:05:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #718 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071605.ab10165@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:05:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 718 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phreak Arrested in Tennessee Voicemail Vandalism [Paul Schmidt] MARS BBS Sysop: It Was All a Joke [Jim Thomas] Section 508 of PL 99:506 [Comserve via Peter M. Weiss] AT&T Reach Out World Woes [Dave Rand] AT&T Software Failure Information Needed [Angel M. Chan] Help Needed With AT&T Cordless Phone [Doug Black] NEC Model 6/16 Telephones Wanted [David C. Troup] Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Macy Hallock] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Kantor] Re: Music On Hold [David O'Heare] Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Tad Cook] Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Schmidt Subject: Phreak Arrested in Tennessee Voicemail Vandalism Date: Sat, 06 Oct 90 19:48:36 EDT Organization: KK4FS - Free Speech Forum, +1 615 283 0864 for BBS sixhub!kk4fs!root@crdgw1.ge.com (Paul Schmidt -) writes: > From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Wednesday, October 3, 1990 > HACKER ALTERING RECORDED PHONE MESSAGES We now have an update on this: From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Saturday, October 6, 1990 PHONE TAMPERING CHARGES FOLLOW ARREST OF AREA MAN From staff reports KINGSPORT, TN - A city man was arrested Friday for allegedly tampering with United Telephone System voice mail boxes. Christopher Stacy Agett, 20, 2016 Woodbine St., was charged with 59 felony counts of interfering with telephone lines and appliances for allegedly replacing voice mail messages with sexually explicit recordings taken from telephone sex lines. In a written statement obtained by UTS security officials, Agett said he dialed into company's voice mail message center and found boxes that were not protected by a code number, or that had a code that was easy to break, such as four sequential numbers. As a result of the incident, UTS officials said in a news release they are taking steps to make the message system more secure. Officials say they won't elaborate on the security procedures "for fear that someone else will comprimise our system." Agett was released on $3,000 bond from Kingsport City Jail Friday afternoon. He will be arraigned Monday morning in Sullivan County Sessions Court. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 02:26 CDT From: TK0JUT2@niu.bitnet Subject: MARS BBS Sysop: It Was All a Joke Pat-- You've obviously heard about the alleged MARS BBS sting -- the ftp BBS at Mississippi State allegedly "busted" for gif files. The problem with the gif files was quite real, BUT THE ALLEGED BBS INVOLVEMENT WAS A **PRANK**. So, if you put out an issue of TCD before we get out CuD, you might want to mention it. We'll have a story on it, but the bottom line is that it was intended as an innocent joke and spread. I finally got ahold of the sysop today (Ed Lukes) and he explained why he did it ... a response to some of the silly mail he was receiving about the gifs, and it was not intended as deception. So, the rumor that the Secret Service was using it as a sting board is *false.* jim [Moderator's Note: Some joke, huh? In these times, jokes like that are NOT funny. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 7 Oct 1990 08:48:07 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Section 508 of PL 99:506 This was found at COMSERVE@RPIECS and was not typed by me. Pete Weiss (pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu) ----------clip here------------ FULL TEXT OF SECTION 508 OF PUBLIC LAW 99:506 Electronic Equipment Accessibility Section 508. (a) (1) The Secratary, through the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabiliation Research an the Administrator of General Services, and in consultation with the electronics industry, shall develop and establish guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility designed to insure that individuals with handicaps may use electronic office equipment with or without special peripherals. (2) The guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be applicable with respect to electronic equipment, whether purchased or leased. (3) The initial guidelines shall be established not later than October 1, 1987 and shall be periodically revised by the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administrator of General Services in consultation with the electronics industry and the Interagency Committee for Computer Support of Handicapped employees as technologies advance or change. (b) Beginning after September 30, 1988, the Administrator of General Services shall adopt guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility under subsection (a) for Federal procurement of electronic equipment. Each agency shall comply with the guidelines adopted under this subsection. (c) For the purposes of this section, the term, "special peripherals" means the specific needs aid that provides access to electronic equipment that is otherwise inaccessible to an individual with handicaps. ------------------------------ From: Dave Rand Date: Sun, 7 Oct 1990 02:08:28 PDT Subject: AT&T Reach Out World Woes ROW is a great plan for me - it covers the majority of places that I call regularly. I switched to it from Reach Out Canada, due to the lower cost of the ROW plan (only $3/mo). It saves me about $200-300 per month on my long distance charges - quite nice! I had a bit of a surpise last month, though. Normally, I am notified by telephone of my month's credit, due to PAC*BELL being unable to bill the AT&T calls at the ROW rates. AT&T re-rates all of my AT&T calls, and credits my account in the next billing cycle (a pain, but the savings do add up). Last month, I didn't get a call. When I called AT&T to get my current credit amount, they were unable to process my request due their computer being down ... I didn't think much of it at the time, guessed at the credit amount, and paid my bill. Today, I received my current billing from PAC*BELL. Surprise! No AT&T credit. And no billing for ROW! Hmm ... calling the AT&T billing info number, I was referred to the ROW office. ROW indicated that my ROW plan was cancelled at my request, and that they had called and left a message on my answering machine asking for confirmation of this change. Needless to say, I assured them that I had not cancelled my ROW plan, and I had received no such message ... they have promised to re-rate my calls for the past two billing periods, and issue a credit within five working days. I now have a note attached to my account that says, roughly: "Customer requests that all change orders be done in writing, no verbal confirmation accepted." The moral of this story: Make them make you put it in writing! :-) Dave Rand {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com ------------------------------ From: Angel M Chan Subject: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed Organization: Columbia University Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:29:40 GMT I am looking for detailed information concerning the AT&T network failure incident. I need to know the exact date, information, and consequences related to a large scale network failure (due to the software problems). I would appreciate any comments, opinions, and information on this subject (or one related to it). Thank you. Please respond to angel@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu. Angel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:58:31 EDT From: Doug Black Subject: Help Needed With AT&T Cordless Phone I recently bought an AT&T model 5320 cordless phone. It's a great product, *but* the receiver volume is too low for my tastes. Does anyone know if there's a pot inside that I can adjust? Thanks in advance. Doug Black UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!dougb ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!dougb@nosc.mil INET: dougb@pro-exchange.cts.com ------------------------------ From: "David C. Troup" Subject: NEC Model 6/16 Telephones Wanted Date: 7 Oct 90 18:23:03 GMT Organization: Skunk Works Robotics Research I'm looking for some telephones for a small phone system at work. The phones are from NEC, and they're NEC 6/16 models. ON the botom of one of the remaining working phones is "AMR ET-6H-3 (BG)". Thats all I know (and they're six line phones). If someone can dig up some phones I would be willing to purchase them. Please reply via EMAIL, since I can only get on the NET about twice a week, and there is too much to go through at 2400bps. David C. Troup dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 10:33 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 >Tens of thousands of MCI customers across the northeastern section of >the United States had long distance phone problems Wednesday after a >construction crew in Ohio sliced through a fiber-optic cable . >A construction crew employed by the State of Ohio was working on a >bridge on the Ohio Turnpike near North Royalton, a Cleveland suburb, >when 'a digging machine went down in the ground, grabbed the >fiber-optic cable and yanked several feet of it out of the ground', >said MCI. MCI's primary backbone switching center is located in North Royalton Ohio. Its a very new, very modern facility. It also handles a lot of calls. Most of the fiber optic terminals are Fujitsu multi-gigbit per second high density type. Although the building is also equipped with several microwave radio links, most of them appear to be used for local links and telco bypass rather than for backbone communications. MCI is very sensitive about network redundacy and its hard to get them to talk about it. I get the impression that they are very aware of the vunerable postition they are in when something like this happens. I do know they are working very hard to establish better redundancy in their network, but these things take time and money ... and AT&T has a real head start. I talked to a couple of my friends at MCI when this happened, and they were quite perturbed. They were quick to point out that they were able to successfully reroute a large portion of their traffic immediatly. They also reminded me of the major AT&T outage we had in Cleveland a year or so ago ... and that wiped Cleveland off the map completely for AT&T. MCI gives group tours of their North Royalton facility. They are fine hosts and are justifiably proud of this high quality part of their network. When I was there, they spent quite a bit of time disucssing their DMS,SS#7 and DACS implementations, even interrupting some of their technical staff to give me the answers. Overall I rate MCI an 8 and the Ohio Turnpike a 3. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 7 Oct 90 15:19:59 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In article <13095@accuvax.nwu.edu> jj1028@homxc.att.com (Maurice R Baker) writes: >If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of >time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) >should give you the choice of: > (several ideas for what you listen to while caught in a telephone > traffic jam) While those are nice suggestions, they miss the point. If more companies started regarding call that was abandoned while on hold as a LOST SALE, they soon start doing something about making sure people weren't put on hold quite so much. It's simple: if you call an organization and get parked for an impolite amount of time, whenever practical, abandon that call and call the competition. If you have to deal with that firm, and it's appropriate, simply ask the clerk to inform his manager that you are unhappy with the length of time you had to wait and you are now much more inclined to call the competition. On a related note, I recently attended the TCA show here in San Diego, and came away with the impression that the largest single emphasis of the vendors at this year's show was on more new and wonderful ways for people to talk to machines. It's sad that a device that was once designed to make communication between humans much easier is now being engineered to make it much less likely. A human-factors consideration: when I was making my living as a computer consultant a few years ago, I became sensitive to the fact that people often needed to call me most when they were having problems with their computers, and that the last thing someone who is already upset with his machine needs to hear is another machine answering the phone when he calls for help. Several of my customers remarked how grateful they were that I had SOMEONE (me or the answering service) available 24 hours to answer their call, even if all they could do was take a message or promise to page me. It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, not machines. Brian ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 5 Oct 90 13:42:28 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth In article <12995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > [stuff about music/sales spiels on hold deleted] If anyone has cause to call WordPerfect for support and gets put on hold, they do things a little differently: there is a _live_ disk jockey playing New-Agey sorts of music and giving reports on the congestion of the phone lines. Good quality sound, and an 800 number that works from Canada. Nice that somebody thinks about the folks on hold. Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface Date: 5 Oct 90 05:23:02 GMT In article <12757@accuvax.nwu.edu>, decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle (John Nagle) writes: > >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. >This is how it all started. Remember Carterfone? No, I am not looking for something to connect from a telco line to a two-way radio. I just want to be able to control the radio from a spare CO line position on the key telephone. No connection to the public switched network at all. Simplex autopatches are common, and they will connect the radio to the telephone line. I want something that makes the radio look like a phone line to the telephone ... without any ringing. The telephone only needs to contact the radio, not the other way around. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed Date: 5 Oct 90 00:59:49 GMT In article <12749@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Bob Lee) writes: > If you could find a friend in an area whose calling area is local to > you and to the area you want to call, they could get a line installed > there with call forwarding which they could program for you. They I do something similar for friends in the suburbs all the time. I have residential Centrex service, and there is a Call Transfer feature. They call me, tell me the number they want (local to me ... toll to them), then I hookflash, get second dial tone, dial the number, and hang up. My phone is then free, and it ties up a couple of trunks in my CO. One could build a cheap register-resend circuit to do this automatically (answers, stores the number you dial in, hookflashes, redials the number that you have just entered, then hangs up for the next call) ... in fact, I am sure that this is how some of the private EAS companies around here have done this. 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 #718 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28466; 7 Oct 90 21:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09542; 7 Oct 90 20:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30452; 7 Oct 90 19:04 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:22:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #719 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071822.ab03936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:22:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 719 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson EuroComm 91: International Exhibition [TELECOM Moderator] Sprint Appointment Book [nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu] Re: 19" Rack Format [Jim Haynes] Re: 19" Rack Format [David Lesher] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Peter M. Weiss] Re: More COCOTery [Macy Hallock] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Jim Haynes] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Bruce Balden] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 17:00:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: EuroComm 91: International Exhibition Nearly nine thousand visitors are expected to attend EuroComm 91 when it convenes in Amsterdam, January 22-25, 1991. Billed as an international exhibition on telecommunications and data communications, EuroComm 91 will feature pavillions from the UK, the USA and Canada among others. In addition, a major exhibit will be entitled 'World of Networking'. It will demonstrate various LAN applications running over an OSI-based multivendor network. US vendor participation in EuroComm included NYNEX at the 1989 event. NYNEX is involved again this time, as is US Sprint. Bell Atlantic has indicated a strong interest in participating, however their commitment to EuroComm 91 was not firmed up as of late September. In all, dozens of firms are already committed to participate, as of mid-September. There are three parts to the EuroComm 91 Congress: 1. The European Congress program: (In English) A. Market Conditions / Regulatory Developments B. Mobile Communications C. Satellite Communications D. Value Added Networks 2. Mini-congresses focusing on the Benelux Market: (In Dutch) - EDI for the distribution and transportation industries - Mobile communications for security and surveillance - Cable TV's new services - New business opportunities with VANs and WANs - ISDN in practice: Rotterdam '90 - EDI in manufacturing - Information networks in government administration - Telematic services and the rise of the home office - Image processing 3. Public Communications. This special one day program on January 23 will discuss cable and satellite TV and how it is transforming the European cultural and business landscape. This presentation will be given in English. The EuroComm 91 exhibition will be held at the RAI Exhibition Center, Europaplein, Amsterdam, from Tuesday, January 22 through Friday, January 25, 1991 inclusive. The EuroComm 91 Congress will be held simultaneously in the adjoining RAI Congress Centre. Exhibit hours are 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily. Exhibitors will have admission from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM each day. The correspondence address for EuroComm 91: RAI Gebouw bv Europaplein 1078 GZ Amsterdam Netherlands Telephone: +31 20 549 12 12 Telex: 16017 Fax: +31 20 46 44 69 The United States representatives for EuroComm 91: Ellen J. Glew, President (and) Lisa Judd Perkins, Senior Consultant E. Glew International Ten Tower Office Park Drive Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 USA Telephone: 617-933-9055 Fax: 617-933-8744 Our USA readers should contact Ms. Glew and Ms. Perkins for a complete package about EurcComm 91, including registration and exhibitor information. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 05:33:35 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: SPRINT Appointment Book I got my Sprint Plus bill today. Inside, along with the usual issue of SprintLine ("news and information" form of advertising), there is an order form for a 1991 Appointment Book and/or Pocket Diary, handsomely bound in faux leather, valued at $21.95/$12.95 respectively, available for ONLY (emphasis theirs) $2.00 EACH plus $2.97 shipping and handling (plus applicable sales tax on these amounts). There is a place for me to give them my Mastercard/Visa/Discover number and expiration date ... great ... I could use an appointment book. They'll even put my initials on it at no extra charge. The problem? I DON'T HAVE A CREDIT CARD! So what am I supposed to do with this wonderful LIMITED TIME offer that they have offered to me, their esteemed customer? Probably not very much. This seems like a rather useless direct-marketing program which reeks of a scam to get more credit information on their customers. My other (smaller) concern is the wording "applicable sales tax on these amounts". 'Applicable' is obviously (?) determined by the state I live in. but 'these amounts' undoubtedly refers to BOTH (i.e. the sum total of) the sales price and the shipping/handling. Can they charge sales tax on shipping/handling? I've never heard of this before. Closer examination of their offer shows that I can order as many additional appointment books as I want, at the full price of $21.95/$12.95 (plus $2.97 shipping/handling). This whole thing is almost as sleazy as most 900 numbers. [Moderator's Note: I think you have a major misunderstanding of the promotion. First, this promotion is being offered by several organizations to their customers including American Express, various VISA/MC agents, and others. It is not peculiar to Sprint. I've received three identical offers (including Sprint's) in the past month. The company which manufactures the diary (and fills ALL the orders!) lets each seller refer to it as their own product. My diary from First National Bank will look exactly like yours from Sprint. The three ads I have received thus far, as bill inserts, all allowed payment by credit card only, however what makes you think VISA would need to get 'credit card information on its customers'? The form you read went out millions of times this month, and Sprint stamped their name on a few hundred thousand, and will get a few cents commission on each order going in which keys back to them. So what? Finally, the tax on 'both amounts' refers to the original diary at the introductory price and the additional diaries you order at the regular price. It does *not* refer to tax on shipping and handling. This promotion has been around for years. In the middle seventies at Amoco they were offered by the 'Amoco Merchandise Center' in bill inserts every October. If you don't have a credit card, that's your problem. Your sense of sleaze is greatly misplaced, I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Date: 7 Oct 90 18:48:30 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS Let's get nit-picky about trivia. :-) In article <13072@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >you have need for specifications in the U.S., the Electronic >Industries Association (EIA) published a standard many years ago. If I remember from an old issue of the Radio Amateur's Handbook that there was at one time both a Western Electric 19" standard and a RETMA 19" standard. RETMA (well before that it was RMA - Radio Manufacturers' Association - was the predecessor name to EIA) The WECo standard was strictly multiples of 1-3/4" panels with notches 1/4" in from the edges: so the holes are spaced 1/2; 1-1/4; 1/2; 1-1/4; 1/2 and so on. The RMA standard had additional holes in the iddle of the 1-1/4" intervals. So most racks you get today have a spacing 1/2; 5/8; 5/8; 1/2; 5/8; 5/8; 1/2 and so on. >BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment >most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical >switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the >same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. I don't know about the 30 and 36 inch stuff; but the Bell 23-inch racks have a standard based on 2-inch vertical increments; or maybe it's integral multiples of 1 inch. I belive the EIA standard also allows for a 24-inch rack, as I've seen some of those in catalogs. I'm dubious about any Western Union connection with all this, because I've seen some Western Union equipment that doesn't fit on 19" racks. But I'm equally eager to learn the True History of this peculiar 19" dimension that has ruled the lives of so many of ur for so long. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:56:35 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Somewhere in the backs of long unaccessed core, I seem to dredge up the fact that 19" racks was a Western Onion standard. Lending credence to that is the fact that Ma's is *not* 19", and we all know that Ma never used competitor's standard, especially a successful one. By the way, the standards quote is from Andy Tannenbaum, author of Minex and doer of many other things... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 7 Oct 1990 09:50:28 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining In article <13083@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) says: >No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have >demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an >innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. >[Moderator's Note: (etc.) >The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >happens and post the responses received. PAT] My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our Moderator be assigned that task. It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel of communication were cutoff. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: I'm not quite sure I understand your claim. Is it 'noise' if you do not agree with the letter-writer? If Mr. McGowan suddenly began refusing to read/answer his mail personally, would that be a big loss? Can you explain further? You are not suggesting that either MCI Mail or ATT Mail would deliberatly cut the connection and reduce their email universe as a result of a few letters sent through which were (in your estimation) 'noise' are you? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 10:06 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 John Higdon (Telecom Critic At Large) and others said: >> Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom >> and TELECOM Digest readers, is a COCOT owner? >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. Well, I came close.... As most of the Digest readers know, I owned (until this week) an interconnect company in Medina, Ohio. Medina is 30 miles outside of Cleveland in GTE-land. Three years ago my brother and I got fed up with GTE's attitude about pay phones ... my father and other brother own a property managment business and had gone through a lot of grief with GTE over pay phones and suggested that we could do a better job. This gave us almost twenty decent locations in Medina to get started in the COCOT business. COCOT's seemed a natural extension of the phone biz for us, so off I went to NATA to look for hardware ... and I found a lot of junk, but a couple of decent phones were actually made. I ordered two types for evaluation, and in they came along with software to permit remote administration. I was now out $3000, 'cuz these guys only deal COD CASH! I played around with the stuff for a few days and installed one in front of our building on a standard business line (GTE did not yet have their COCOT tarriff in place, they had been dragging their feet with the PUCO for two years...) I also started looking at how to deal with credit card and collect calls. That's where I got a reality check ... AOS's were the problem. Credit cards validation was a problem. A small time COCOT operator had to either deal with high priced and somewhat slimey AOS services or not at all. AT&T did not want to talk to me, much less provide any assistance. Sprint and MCI did not have their operator services up to speed at that time. As long as I did local and sent-paid coin calls, COCOT's were OK...but not practical in today's communications environment. GTE would not give me equal access to their services, either. I went back to selling key systems ... and told my father and brother how to file formal PUC complaints against GTE over pay phone problems. (Coming soon ... my attempt to enter the long distance resale business ... another reality check for a small businessman..) Other comments: The communication business is now very different than five years ago. There are only three successful niches left in private CPE telecom: - The very small one or two man key system business. Low margins and very personal service. - The large, customer oriented regional company. Succeeds in quality service, brand name products and a wide range of services. Very marketing oriented. - The large national company. Usually direct sales by the manufacturer. Looking for large, national accounts. Sells with a "safe to deal with" mentality. This tracks with John Higdon's comments about COCOT companies. Note that there is no niche left for the small to medium size telecom specialist. There is now no growth path for the small shop, except to sell out. (BTW - I sold out my PBX business to a larger office automation company, owned by a friend in Cleveland, and now work for him. F M Systems in Medina continues to do alarm work and a few small key systems, just to aggravate GTE... under the auspices of my brother. I help him out on computer issues and spend most of my time in Cleveland on PBX's and phone engineering now. My wife hasn't seen me in a week ...) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 7 Oct 90 18:35:07 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS In article <13068@accuvax.nwu.edu> bgsuvax!jyoull@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Youll) writes: > (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner > cartridges did you want this week?" I've read in the local paper that the D.A.'s office has had a lot of complaints about some copier-supplies firms that market this way. They go beyond being "merely" annoying by fooling people into ordering things they didn't intend to order, at prices higher than their regular suppliers charge. Wonder why these sleazoid outfits happen to pick copier supplies as their merchandise of choice? haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes [Moderator's Note: They are also into selling FAX paper, printer paper and other office supplies in the same way. It is a scam. PAT] ------------------------------ From: balden@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Bruce Balden) Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 7 Oct 90 22:01:22 GMT Reply-To: balden@van-bc.UUCP (Bruce Balden) Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada In this area, at least, the method is to dial "211". The phone switch then speaks back the number to you. [Moderator's Note: This is another example of the diversity you will find from one telco to another. For thirty years here, 211 got you the long distance operator, in the days when long distance calls could not be dialed direct. Even the 'ring-back code' 571-6 no longer works here. Telcos are starting to be very tight-lipped about this sort of information. Really, you can't blame them. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #719 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05500; 8 Oct 90 3:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14151; 8 Oct 90 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00366; 8 Oct 90 1:08 CDT Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 0:39:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #720 BCC: Message-ID: <9010080039.ab17942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Oct 90 00:39:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 720 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Traffic Reporters (was: Cellular Phones on Airport Runway) [Brian Kantor] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [John Stanley] Re: Music on Hold [Jeremy Brest] Re: Music On Hold [John Higdon] Re: A New Way to Get Slammed [John Higdon] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman] SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Traffic Reporters (was: Cellular Phones on Airport Runway) Date: 7 Oct 90 01:06:44 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Some small stations may use cellular phones, but in this part of the world, the traffic reporting companies who do that for several stations use one or more of the Remote Pickup Broadcast channels allocated to their radio clients. You can easily find them on channels in the 450 to 451 MHz range, sometimes on repeaters ("mobile relay") systems and sometimes direct. You should also scan around 161 MHz, as there are a few RPB channels there. Others use various business-band channels to report the traffic conditions to a central office, where an announcer actually provides stations with the report - with these, it's NOT broadcast from the mobiles. (I think direct rebroadcast of Land Mobile channels isn't permitted.) Commonly, stations not using radio circuits used to use automated tone-activated "cart" tape machines to record these broadcasts - a sort of very high quality answering machine, but on a leased line. Some actually used real phone answering machines on POTS lines. Some use multidrop conference circuits like the auto parts dealers do. In one town I know about, it was discovered that one of the announcer-in-a-box traffic report firms was getting its information from eavesdropping on the OTHER firm that actually had a helicopter and mobiles - the quality and completeness of the former's reports dropped noticeably the day the real company changed radio channels. Later, the real company would occasionally report fake traffic jams and accidents to their base station using a code word that told the base that it WAS a fake and not to pass it on for broadcast - but the eavesdropping reporting firm didn't know the code word and would pass on the reports. They're not in business anymore. Oh, then there's the time that Channel X TV sent two of their minicam units to cover a plane crash they'd heard about on Channel Y's news dispatch frequency - when they got there, all there was to be found was channel Y's news director saying something about how he had a feeling they were going to show up. Brian ------------------------------ Date: 07 Oct 90 00:19:07 EDT From: John Stanley <73765.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Regarding a comment on the FCC requesting a traffic reporter to stop using cellular phones from the air, our esteemed Moderator asks: >[Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I >think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to >report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT In Syracuse, Captain Scott King, the only air traffic reporter in Syracuse, uses 170.15 for his downlink. Uplink frequency is unknown, but 170.15 can be used by the studios he talks to (1 AM, 1 FM, and 1 TV, as far as I know.) The city police also monitor 170.15 and can talk to him on it. He regularly uses this frequency to notify them of traffic problems and accidents. This frequency is designated as one of the standard remote to studio links, and is used for many things besides air traffic. Several stations in this area use it for live shots. It was quite interesting to listen during the (Great) New York State Fair, where everyone and their brother was trying to get live stuff from the grounds. The Captain was VERY unhappy that his signal was getting covered. Since there is so little coordination heard on that frequency, there must be another frequency they use, but I have not found it. A friend of mine flies a reporter during the Captain's vacation time. He says there is about 100 pounds of radio gear strapped into the seat. It includes tally lights and all sorts of stuff. There are a lot of extra antennas pasted all over the Captain's plane. His signal from the plane is good enough that he sometimes makes his last traffic report from the ground at the airport after landing. For those with a listening bent, the RTS links and other media frequencies are a great way to keep up with breaking news. The police use too many codes, but the reporters never do. It also gives an insight into the mania that exists in broadcast journalism. One night, I heard a TV remote leave the local hospital (downtown) and arrive at the station (Eastside) in about five minutes, in a race to get a hot tape to air. He must have been doing about 80 and blowing red lights to perform this feat. The tape: a standup in front of the hospital saying that one victim was taken to XXX hospital, but no information was available on his condition. The ground pounding reporters do make heavy use of cellular, sometimes for remote feeds. This is information I heard from someone. I never listen to cellular frequencies. Nope, not me. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Brest Subject: Re: Music On Hold Organization: Swarthmore College, PA, USA Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 23:28:12 GMT In <13121@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >It's sad that a device that was once >designed to make communication between humans much easier is now being >engineered to make it much less likely. >Several of my customers >remarked how grateful they were that I had SOMEONE (me or the >answering service) available 24 hours to answer their call, even if >all they [sic] could do was take a message or promise to page me. >It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an >answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I >got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, >not machines. Brian, if what you want to do is communicate, then having people grateful is not the right metric to base decision making on. People leave watered down messages with secretaries and answering services. Voice mail and answering machines may be displeasing at first, we find that people leave more detailed messages on them, and for good reason: The intended recipient hears the message. It is not translated by someone who isn't current on the subject. That means that the caller is able to make assumptions about the listener's knowledge on the subject. People take a long time to become comfortable with new modes of communication. But it is wrong and reactionary to say that voice mail and answering machines make communications between and among people less likely -- they make it more likely. They just make it less likely that people will need to be on the telephone at the same time to communicate effectively. (For a pretty decent parallel, look at how email improves communications in settings where it is well used.) Jeremy Brest Jeremy_Brest@NeXT.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 7 Oct 90 18:02:46 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Oct 7 at 16:05, Brian Kantor writes: > It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an > answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I > got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, > not machines. And where, oh where, pray tell, do you find this magical answering service? I have been in business for two decades selling and now designing (and selling) equipment and have completely given up on answering services. Unfortunately, I am not, at present, large enough to have a full-time secretary and so I must resort to mechanical means since I am frequently out (and almost never go into the office). Answering services? Phooey! The high turnover morons can't spell to save their lives. They transpose digits in phone numbers. They, themselves, put people on hold forever. "Announcementtechnologiescanyouhold?" And that's after about fifteen rings. And heaven help the customer who actually thinks that he is talking to a bona fide human and starts talking TECHNICAL! (Those messages usually ended up in the service's File 13.) Checking for messages is a real treat. "This is 505, do have any messages?" "Oh yes, Mr. Higdon, quite a few -- oh could you hold please?" [long wait] "Oh, sorry to keep you waiting. Let's see ... An urgent call from a Mr. [unintelligible] who says that your space in San Francisco ... Oh, excuse me just a moment." [long wait] "Sorry. Let's see ... You got the first message..." "No, I didn't understand the name." "Oh, it was ... hold on please." And on and on. Mind you this isn't one service, but the SOP for every one of the six or so services that I tried. And another thing: It wasn't $25/month. It was more like $120-$150 per month. If the morons were underpaid, then someone was getting very rich. You can keep answering services. I (and I'm sure my customers) would rather speak into a mechanical contrivance any day of the week rather than be faced with an over-priced answering service bimbo from hell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: There are good answering services. Twenty years ago I used one for quite awhile: Annex Telephone Answering, downtown in the Chicago Temple Building. They were good, and they offered flat rate service which as I recall was $35 per month. That included paging me to 'call the office' when they had a message. This wa a bridged service, i.e. they had an extension of my line which came up on their board. Whether or not an answering machine/voicemail is preferable to an answering service depends on the nature of the business and the temperment of the caller. A physician, psychiatrist or social worker might be better off with a live, trained person at an answering service specializing in that sort of client. Annex carried a lot of professional clients; they opened for business about 1920. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A New Way to Get Slammed Date: 7 Oct 90 17:35:10 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Veteran endurers of Pac*Bell nonsense will recall that several years ago the utility itself got its hand slapped for slamming. It would routinely provide subscribers with Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, or Three Way Calling, without even being asked. But it wasn't for free -- normal rates applied. People would have these features for years without even knowing anything about them. It came to light when people began calling repair service claiming that their conversations would be interrupted with clunks and beeps. Pac*Bell was ordered to remove the services and retroactively refund to any and all who came forward after a media blitz. Another outcropping of that incident was the requirement that all monthly residence bills contain a detailed listing of the monthly charges. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 19:52:23 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining >>The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >>or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >>scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >>happens and post the responses received. PAT] >My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with >mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our >Moderator be assigned that task. >It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel >of communication were cutoff. Putting on my (unearned) powdered wig again, I also believe deluging an email box with correspondence is unwise and perhaps illegal. There may even be some laws relative to using the telecommunications networks in this manner. First, it is abusive, generally bad form, and potentially illegal (harrassment) to deprive someone (including corporations of the rightful use of their property. I think deluging an email box could be construed to fall under this, even if it has not yet been tested in the court. I'm fairly certain there are similar ones that protect people against constant phone calls whose intent is to annoy or have the effect of interfering with its normal use. Second, for an individual to think about such is contemplation and is not (yet) illegal. For individual to discuss illegal acts can be interpreted as conspiracy to commit, which is illegal. If we want to change phone company behavior, I agree with the responder that lobbying (it's not always a dirty word) is a more responsible way by presenting facts and consensus of opinion and that bypassing the bureaucracy by sending it direct to the email accounts of the corporate leaders is entirely reasonable. The WORST that can happen from THAT is that they ignore it or bounce it down to a peon for a response. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I think your 'legal advice' is all wet. If several people sending email to the same person(s) at more or less the same time is illegal, then the thousands of people who send public opinion messages to their congress-critters daily via Western Union are all criminals, since several telex machines run almost constantly 24 hours per day in the Congressional Telecommunications Center handling these. When someone publishes their email address -- just as when they publish their telephone number -- they are inviting people to contact them via that media. The 9000+ persons who call 202-456-1414 each 24 hour period -- many of whom actually ask to speak to George -- are also guilty of clogging the circuits, no? Those crackpots! Cut off their phone service and stick 'em all in jail! Furthermore, the people who use their own computers and modems to connect with Western Union to send lobbyist telegram messages should likewise be prosecuted, huh? And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as co-conspirators, right? Of course that won't happen, because CBS has a smart-mouthpiece of their own on retainer. And when Kay Graham or one of my other competitors uses their editorial page to encourage readers to send their opinion on some issue to a corporation, they are also guilty of harrassment, right? I can just hear it now: ... " why poor Bill McGowan ... he had to actually sift through and erase a dozen email letters from folks who don't agree with the way he runs things at MCI ...ahhhhhh" (whining tone of voice). I manage my email just fine, thanks; let him do the same. Lots of publications and electronic media invite, indeed encourage people to assist in lobbying for a given cause. I will do the same. Or is it 'lobbying' when you agree with the cause, and 'harassment' when you do not? Your complaint is invalid. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 19:28:11 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Does anyone know of equipment that could be hooked to either a single phone or one line of a 1A2 system that could perform some of the functions of SMDR, for both outgoing and incoming calls but at least time recording for incoming. Also, the phones are currently pulse dial ! (Don't bother making suggestions about replacing the system or the phones, I could figure that out myself but is not an option right now.) I imagine some of this could be done with a modem and PC so such software and hardware suggestions are OK but would prefer, if possible, a less expensive device solution. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #720 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06580; 8 Oct 90 4:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05620; 8 Oct 90 3:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14151; 8 Oct 90 2:12 CDT Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 1:17:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #721 BCC: Message-ID: <9010080117.ab16176@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Oct 90 01:17:39 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 721 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson History of Telephone and Electronic Apparatus Relay Racks [Larry Lippman] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Tad Cook] Re: SPRINT Appointment Book [Steve Forrette] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Tad Cook] Non-911 Emergency Calls via Pay Phones [Sander J. Rabinowitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: History of Telephone and Electronic Apparatus Relay Racks Date: 7 Oct 90 23:35:05 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In articles <13072@accuvax.nwu.edu>, <13103@accuvax.nwu.edu> and <13127@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Donald E. Kimberlin, Thomas J. Roberts and haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu discuss and ask questions about the 19" rack standard. I have commingled the quotes from their articles in order to create a logical flow and shed further light on this issue. > >I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but > >since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth > >a try. > Any technology historians out there for this one? > Let's get nit-picky about trivia. :-) You came to the right place, and to the right person. :-) In the Bell System and WECo world, rack mounted telephone apparatus as we know it today did not begin to develop until about 1917. Prior to that time, apparatus was chiefly constructed in wooden boxes which sat on the floor or hung on walls. Anyone who has ever seen pictures of the first transcontinental telephone line repeater systems will know exactly what I mean. The requirement for repeaters seemed to spur the development of relay racks and a dimensional standard, and as far as I know, sometime between 1917 and 1920 the 23" mounting plate and relay rack standard was born. The first WECo product that I know of to utilize the 23" mounting plate was the 22-type voice frequency repeater, which made its debut in 1920. The 23" WECo standard was based upon mounting plates in 2" increments, with vertical relay rack mounting holes on 1" centers. > >When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? Sometime during the 1920's, and probably by RCA. WECo also made use of 19" apparatus beginning in the 1920's, but its use was primarily restricted to transmission measurement apparatus and other apparatus specifically related to radio communication. The 19" standard (today called EIA) made use of apparatus mounting plates in 1-3/4" increments, with relay rack mounting holes in three-hole spacing increments of 5/8"-5/8"-1/2". While 19" is by far the most common panel width, the EIA standard also covers panels in widths of 24" and 30". Please note that an EIA width is 24" and *not* 23" (a common misconception). > As a matter of interest, you will be surprised to see how many > manufacturers violate the standard in various details. If you have > been engaged in rack-mounting equipment of various vendors, it is not > at all unusual to have to perform some hacksaw, hammer and file > surgery in the process. Tell me about it! Special thanks for notable aggravation in past years go out to Specific Products (frequency standard receiver), Pacific Measurements (digital precision microwave power meter) and various apparatus made by Singer Metrics Division. :-) > I cannot speak to the issues of what corner of history this method > came from, but have reason to believe it predates the Bell hegemony, > dating back to days of peak Western Union influence. I don't believe the 19" rack was originated by Western Union, but I cannot be certain. > BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment > most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical > switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the > same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. The WECo apparatus standard for 23", 30" and 36" mounting plates are *all* based upon a 2" mounting plate increment with 1" vertical hole spacing. > I do know the US inch-dimensioned racks all have whole-unit metric > equivalents. Because the inch-dimensioned racks do not actually come > out to exact inches, the root might well be some European imports of > antiquity that set the norm for the US. Interestingly enough, the 1970's vintage Japanese wire spring relay-crossbar PABX, such as those made by Hitachi, NEC and OKI, generally used the WECo 36" mounting plate for both relays and crossbar switches. > As this is a telecom newsgroup, I feel compelled to mention that AT&T > equipment racks [5ESS(Tm)] are usually 22.5" wide. Ah, yes the WECo ESS mounting frames. This began as a 23" U-shaped mounting plate whose width was extended by 1/2" of flat metal on each side so that it would mount from *behind* the frame. All traditional 23", 30" and 36" apparatus plates mount from the *front* of the frame. Then there was the WECo 770 and 800-series PABX's which used 36" plates which also mounted from behind the swing-out frames. In closing, I have a special treat for John Higdon. John's favorite :-) telephone company and apparatus manufacturer, GTE/Automatic Electric, has yet another rack standard for some electromechanical switching apparatus: 18-3/8" wide. I will further make John's day by admitting that I have personally experienced aggravation over being unable to mount any 19" apparatus in such frames. :-) 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 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Date: 7 Oct 90 23:33:24 GMT In article <12898@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hes@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name > "cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom > "cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does > anyone know? I read something one time about a character who worked for the mob in New York or Chicago years ago. He had the nickname "cheesebox" because he had allegedly designed and built the first one of these call forwarders 50 or so years ago in a real cheese box. 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: Sun, 7 Oct 90 22:08:55 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Re: SPRINT Appointment Book I took advantage of this offer from Citibank a couple of years ago. It's a pretty good deal, I thought, but here's the catch - you agree to be sent them each year, with subsequent years being billed at the full $21.95 price! Actually, you have the option not to purchase in subsequent years. What happens is they send you a notice about a month in advance, reminding you of "the deal," and telling you that you need to send something back if you DON'T want it. But, I just glanced over it at the time, determined it was junk mail, and junked it. Well, when the book arrived, I felt really hoodwinked, but they gave me a refund when I sent them back (refund necessary since they automatically bill your credit card!). Now back to telecom... [Moderator's Note: I should have, but neglected to mention that part about the 'negative-option' in my response yesterday. It is true you get into a cycle with the calendar/diary people which requires you to respond to them every year (regardless of *who* you actually buy it from, i.e. Sprint, American Express, Visa, "Amoco Merchandise Center" a/k/a/ Fingerhut a/k/a "Exxon Merchandise Center", Diners Club et al) but it still is a decent and attractive little book, and hardly the sleazy, scam offer our original correspondent purported it to be. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 7 Oct 90 17:24:14 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Oct 7 at 15:02, TELECOM Moderator writes: > A sticker > covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT] Another liability suffered by virtually all COCOTs and not suffered by utility phones is the requirement for AC power for operation. This problem came to the fore during last October's shaker. There were vast areas without power (not to mention Pacific Gas and Electric Company's normally poor performance) and a number of people were anable to report emergencies from inoperative COCOTs. I remember one time, late at night, when my car was acting funny out in the desert. No cellular service was available (there is now, thank goodness) but there was a gas station at hand. Unfortunately, it was closed and the COCOT was apparently powered from the pump circuit, since it was dead. This was one of the most frightening experiences to date related to a COCOT. So while we're writing our dream tariff list, how about including a requirement for a floating battery backup that will last some minimum of, say, twelve hours? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: John, thanks for yet another reason why I don't think a sticker over the coin slot is all that likely to cause a tragedy. If the COCOT owners really cared anyway, they'd have a lot better arrangement than they do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 7 Oct 90 23:27:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I > think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that > says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when > auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker > should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as > required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this > is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] How does one determine this, without calling 9-1-1? You could just dial 9-1-1 and then hang up, but 9-1-1 PSAPs don't really like this. In fact, the procedure at the ones I am familiar with is to call back and determine what the problem is. If no one answers, they often assume an emergency where someone dialed 9-1-1 as they were being assaulted, so they roll a police car to the address on the ANI/ALI display to see what is happening. Listening to Seattle Police on my scanner, I hear cars dispatched all the time where the description given by the dispatcher is "ANI-ALI hangup call." Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe "Telephone Man! Just checking the 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 [Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the physical condition of many/most COCOTs, this may be a moot point. Also, the phone probably has a notice on it saying how to place various calls. If the notice says 911 is permitted free, I'd take the owner's word for it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:01 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Non-911 Emergency Calls via Pay Phones There have recently been concerns expressed over the last several days over the ability of using COCOTs to access emergency-911 service. However, not all communities have access to 911 service, and in these cases, I would speculate the situation becomes more difficult. The COCOT may be pre-programmed (one would hope) to immediately connect you to 911, but would it be possible to program the COCOT to allow access to one or more local-style phone numbers for emergency purposes? (Or is it so inflexible that to bypass one number, you have to bypass an entire exchange?) FOR EXAMPLE: Until last year, if one wanted emergency assistance in Farmington Hills, Mich., one had to dial xxx-x911, which was normally a local call. One day about two years ago, I witnessed a near-accident involving a stalled vehicle that was blocking part of a very busy road. I pulled over to the gas station pay phone, and dialed xxx-x911, only to receive a recording that the call required 20 cents. I didn't have any change. (This, incidentally, involved a GENUINE telephone co. pay phone.) So I dialed the operator, and requested that I be connected to the Farmington Hills police, and immediately cited their telephone number. The operator refused, and while I forgot her exact reasons for the refusal ("not a real emergency number," I think), she repeatedly asked me to hang up and dial 911 (which at the time didn't work -- it connected the caller to a neighboring city's P.D.). When I asked to speak to her supervisor, she finally connected me to the number. Thankfully, this was not a situation where seconds counted -- but what if it WAS? I wasted about 60 seconds arguing with the operator (and I would have wasted a lot more time if I had to place the call through my calling card). But the trouble is there's no way of knowing if there's a problem until you have to make that emergency call. Since then: 911 is now available here, so that's no longer a problem. But if you're ever in a community where 911 isn't available, and you had to place an emergency call through a pay phone, you'd better hope that you have change or a calling card, or prey that you get an operator who is better informed of the situation. Note: In this message, x's represent numbers deleted by this writer. The First Amendment and all relevant disclaimers apply. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | --> 8-) <-- [Moderator's Note: If the COCOT owner can program the phone so that some three digit code (typically 611) rings the answering service where he picks up messages of complaint about his phones (most are programmed to do this), then he should be able to program the phone to have 911 ring some seven digit number for the police in the event 911 is not available. Of course, you'd think telco could do the same in their CO, and intercept calls to 911, re-routing them to the appropriate seven digit number for that exchange. After all, that is much how 911 works anyway in some communities. For example here in Chicago, 312-787-0000 is one of the numbers translated into by 911 for folks on the near north side of the city. Dial that number and you will get Chicago Emergency just as surely as via 911, the difference being the former leaves the dispatcher with a blank read-out; they assume the Bell operator put the call through and forgot to stay on the line to pass the number orally to the dispatcher. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #721 ******************************  ISSUE 722 ARRIVED LATE AND APPEARS IN THE ARCHIVES FOLLOWING ISSUE 725.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03541; 9 Oct 90 5:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06495; 9 Oct 90 3:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30322; 9 Oct 90 2:24 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 2:05:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #723 BCC: Message-ID: <9010090205.ab16240@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Oct 90 02:05:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 723 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: San Fransisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [John B. Meaders Jr.] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [Andy Jacobson] Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number [Andy Jacobson] Re: More COCOTery [Martin B. Weiss] Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Dave Levenson] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Scott Keller] Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Bryan M. Richardson] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Music On Hold/"Hawk On Hold" [Rich Sims] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Macy Hallock] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Roy Smith] Re: Another Award Call [David Brightbill] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: john@karnak.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Organization: Capitalist Warmongers, Inc. Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 00:53:53 GMT In article <13070@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Is there any sort of model for how 911 calls are to be prioritized? >Wouldn't a scuffle in the middle of a call be reason to suspect that >someone was being hurt? Or am I just dense? I watch Rescue 911 quite a bit and get the opinion that 911 service is great. This is very disturbing that these operators don't even take the time to found out what exactly is going on. If I were an operator, and the phone hung up on me, I would take this as an emergency and get someone there immediately. I hope I don't get in any kind of trouble in SF where I would need 911 (I don't have any plans to go to SF in the near future anyway, but just suppose I did :-) because I think I would be in serious trouble. I doubt SF has a model for prioritizing. Something out of the ordinary going on during a call (shots fired, scuffle, scream, etc.) should definitely clue a 911 operator that something isn't right. But, I guess SF probably goes on a FIFO (first in, first out) basis :-) (just joking :-)). SF should definitely change their 911 system so that they don't get any more of these instances. John B. Meaders, Jr. 510 Manchester Ct., Hopewell, VA 23806 Voice: 804-458-2983 Net: john@karnak.cactus.org or john@karnak [Moderator's Note: Given my 'druthers, with Chicago and its relatively efficient 911 system and San Fransisco, with the highly publicized mistake by 911 dispatchers, I think I'd still rather be in SFC. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 20:00 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls. My experience has been the same as Doug Reuben's. I tried calling 800-666-6258 from 415-552 (one of the last XB's in San Francisco.) and got a recording to the effect that the call could not be completed. Apparently the EM switches can not support calls to non-ATT 800 numbers. I attempted it in the first place to see if the ANI demo would work from an EM switch, which I guess I'll never know as the demo is now gone (at least from all the lines I've tried here in L.A.) being replaced by an MCI version of the old "The number you have dialed,....." recording. In reference to a long running debate some months back, when the ANI demo did work, I tried it from UCLA's Northern Telcom PBX, and it of course read back to me the outgoing trunk number, which is the main incomming number for campus, and the only number associated with the call. DID numbers normally don't show up on calls originating from trunk groups. Andy Jacobson (izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 21:31 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ring-back and finding own number In reference to the Moderator's comments at the end of #719: Pat, I discovered that here in GTE-land of West LA, none of the old techniques worked for ring-back. (These old techniques being: Calling a special prefix followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number, you get a dial tone that you can not dial against, you give a switchhook flash, get a special tone, hang up and it rings. If when you pick up again, you give another flash, it will ring back again, ad infinitum, but if you just hang up you are back to regular service). There were some suspicious open stretches of prefixes in the 213 that responded like 1ESS's do when you dialed the ringback wrong (954-958), so I got creative. I found that from 213-824, if, instead of dialing 954 and the last 4 digits, I preceded it with a 1, it worked! Ditto for 1-958 from the 208 prefix. Both of these prefixes are on a 1ESS (CLLI=WLANCAXJ). Now in Evanston, Illinois, once they had 1ESS in place, 571 was the ringback prefix for 864, 869, 491, and the non-NU part of 492. 572 was the prefix for 475, 573 for 328, and 574 for 866. (I never got to try the newer 570 prefix.) These no longer work, but if you try 1-57n-XXXX ... Bingo. You should try these around the 312, and 708 areas to see what happens. Interestingly these methods appear to be switch dependant. In MarVista (part of LA, CLLI=SNMNCA??) there is an NT digital switch. One simply dials their own number and hangs up. However in Venice (also part of LA, CLLI=SNMNCA??) you have to dial 113 and your seven digits. In the last two years or so, GTE has upped the stakes. From 213-208, and 213-824 anyway, it only works every third time you try it (you have to repeat the entire process to progress). The first two are either a decoy or perhaps for some different types of ringer I've never tried from. It seems for me its always the third that works, and if I keep trying, it cycles in threes. In reference to finding your own number, in the 1ESS part of LA, you dial 1223. In the digital part, 114. In San Francisco, 760 and another one I can't remember BOTH work (except for a very few prefixes, where it is one or the other). In Chicago, it used to be 290, followed by a flash, but I could never get it to work reliably since 1980. Andy Jacobson (izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu) [Moderator's Note: I've since found that 571 (wait for dial tone, flash hook, dial 6 and hang up, then get ring back) throughout northern Ilinois' old 312 code has been replaced by 1-57x-last four of your phone number (get fresh dial tone, dial 6 and hang up, then get ring back) throughout 708 and 312. In addition to getting a ring back, if you want to test the accuracy of your touchtone pad, after you have dialed the 1-57x-last four and received fresh dial tone, then (against that new dial tone) dial 1234567890. If your tone pad is working properly you will get cla-beep! cla-beep! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 8 Oct 90 13:17:01 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In article <13054@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. >COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), >hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are >people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more successful. Thus, the abusive telephone would see a drop in traffic and revenue, which should cause the owner to reform their errant ways. Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Date: 8 Oct 90 12:57:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <13140@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > Does anyone know of equipment that could be hooked to either a > single phone or one line of a 1A2 system that could perform some of > the functions of SMDR... I remember seeing something like that available over-the-counter at Radio Shack. The unit resembles a small printing calculator with a modular jack. You use the keyboard for setting date and time, and for administering its options. It prints a one- or two-inch paper tape of call-detail. There may also be some on-demand summary report available. 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 ------------------------------ From: sekell@monsanto.com Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 8 Oct 90 10:00:38 GMT Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO > [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT Around here, the local clear-channel AM station (KMOX) uses a FM radio system on 161.730 Mhz for their traffic copter-to-base reporting. I'm not sure if this frequency is specifically allocated for this type of service or not. I thought I once heard that this same system and frequency was used as a link to the local Emergency Operations Center for their EBS broadcast audio. Scott Keller - sekell@monsanto.com - 314-537-6317 - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 12:26:40 EDT From: Bryan M Richardson Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <13027@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >The overflow of calls from MCI on Wednesday went mostly to AT&T, with >some of the traffic going to Sprint. The overflow caused the AT&T >network throughout the northeast to be sluggish and very slow most of >the day. How do you mean "sluggish?" Either calls complete or they don't-- the switches do not queue them up in long lines. I didn't hear any reports of network congestion. Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories [Moderator's Note: My experience that day was that while some calls got rejected with fast busy signals, others simply got lost in transit. That is, they wandered away into dead silence, no ring/no busy. After a waiting period of maybe fifteen or twenty seconds, I'd simply abandon the call and dial over. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 12:40:32 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: Music On Hold Reply-To: "bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM" Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center => > Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. => OK ... how's this for an idea: => If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of => time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) => should give you the choice of: I want music on hold, interrupted every 30 seconds telling me where I am in queue. Extra points if they give me a good estimate of how long I'll still be waiting. Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 08:53:50 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Music On Hold/"Hawk On Hold" In-Reply-To: message from brian@ucsd.edu I recently had occasion to call a company with a voice menu arrangement and it was interesting to note that callers were given the choice of remaining on a silent (except for occasional break-ins with a recorded announcement) line or choosing music on hold. An eminently civilised solution, in my opinion. (I chose silence!) I won't even comment on what I think of the level of complexity some outfits have managed to build into their voice menu systems, though! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:01 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <13131@accuvax.nwu.edu> >haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu writes: [Discussion of sleazy copier/toner/paper telemarketing practices...] >Wonder why these sleazoid outfits happen to >pick copier supplies as their merchandise of choice? Because it works and they get away with it ... and they sell other things, too. I've seen other common items sold the same way. Sometimes its sold COD, other times they just render a big invoice that looks legit and it gets paid. An awful lot of small and large companies will pay damn near any credible looking invoice...remember telex directories? If the receptionist is given explicit instructions on how to handle telemarketing salescritters, then its easier to control ... most employees are trained to respond to authority over the phone with action, not questions. This is not always in your best interest, and is a sign of poor employee training. Here, all calls where questions are asked about equipment info, etc. are sent to the person who handles our purchasing. Invoices are never ever paid unless a P.O. was issued, with prices on it, so the bookkeeper knows the invoice is OK. COD's must have a P.O. number on the address label or back they go. This is occasionally inconvienient (like the time they sent back a tech manual I ordered and paid for by credit card, but had no PO number ... now we use a personal name, not a company name on those orders) Even the yellow pages bills, advertising bills and long distance invoices are checked for contract compliance before payment. This sometimes slows things up a bit, but you'd be amazed at the errors (accidental and intentional) that have been caught here. Double invoices from some suppliers are often caught... I find my wife often responds to telemarketing people who call her at home. Why? Well, she's a medical lab tech (can you say histotechnologist?) and often answers questions on the phone at the lab. If she asks someone calling who they are or why they need the info, she usually gets yelled at by a rude and impatient doctor. (So much for patient confidentiality)...... I've finally trained her (with her cooperation, of course) to tell the telemarketing types "We do not discuss {financial, real estate, sales} transactions on the phone and hang up. She hang up on Sears the other night. We have found this will work with stockbrokers if used properly, too. (I still haven't got our local newspaper to quit calling, yet.) I'm waiting for her to hang up on a doctor at work by accident one of these days. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:54:53 GMT And just how does one test a COCOT to see if it can put through a call to 911 sans coin? The only way I can think of is to actually try it, wasting valuable 911 operator time to answer a non-call. On the other hand, if you never try it, you'll never have evidence to confront the COCOT owner with, so it won't get fixed, and potentially somebody will not be able to place a 911 call when they need to. Interesting dilema. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:56:02 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Another "Award" Call The number in question (904-492) is located in Pensacola , Florida. P'cola is a military/port/beach town in the western end of the panhandle. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #723 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29489; 10 Oct 90 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14067; 10 Oct 90 2:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08538; 10 Oct 90 1:07 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 0:53:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #724 BCC: Message-ID: <9010100053.ab23362@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 00:53:42 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 724 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Electronic Frontier Foundation Hires Staff Counsel [Mike Godwin] Background Papers Wanted on Telecommunications [Jane M. Fraser] Description of Sprint Select Interstate [Ken Jongsma] Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Paul Elliott] Telemarketing Under the Influence [John Nagle] Re: Mental Harassment [Gordon Burditt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation Hires Staff Counsel Date: 9 Oct 90 14:12:02 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA This posting is meant to serve two purposes: a) formally announcing that I have been hired as staff counsel by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for whom I will investigate cases that the EFF may be interested in, and for whom I will be coordinating EFF's legal strategy, and b) letting readers of this newsgroup know how to contact EFF about computer-related incidents and cases that raise civil-liberties issues in which you think the organization should be interested. To let EFF know about an interesting or troubling incident or case, you can send information to my address (mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us) or to EFF's general address (eff@well.sf.ca.us). The first address will probably get a slightly faster response, but either is fine. The U.S. Mail address is the following: Mike Godwin c/o Electronic Frontier Foundation 155 Second Street Cambridge, MA 02141. I can be reached by phone at 617-864-0665. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us Electronic Frontier Foundation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 16:15:31 edt From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Background Papers Wanted on Telecommunications I am one of 25 members of a committee recently appointed by the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce to create a vision for the future for Columbus in telecommunications and information services. I, and the rest of the committee, are taking this charge very seriously. As Jonathan York, the President of the Chamber, put it: If Columbus had had such a committee on transportation 10 years ago, maybe our airport wouldn't be such a weak part of Columbus today. We need help in gathering information that will help us with this job. I'll explain in more detail what we are looking for, but the bottom line is: please send me any papers you have or you have written that might help us as background reading for our work. The details now follow. I'm one of two academics on the committee. The rest are business people, ranging from the President of a small tile making company to the President of a large information services company. Not all are in businesses related to telecommunications or information services. We have decided to proceed in three steps: 1- Self education. We need to bring ourselves up to speed on telecommuncations in three areas: a - How are institutions using and how could they use telecommunications in their day-to-day activities? For examples: students registering for classes at Ohio State using BRUTUS, the on-line touch-tone phone system; Point-Of-Sale terminals enabling large companies to keep track of demand and order products to match changing demands; use of satellites to transmit education and training to remote sites; electronic mail and electronic data exhange within and between companies to improve efficiency of operations. We want to focus on Columbus examples where possible, but certainly want to hear about good examples from anywhere. b - How are other cities, states, and countries assisting institutions to use telecommunication technology effectively? Do other localities have a telecommunications policy that would help us in advising Columbus? c - What are the legal and regulatory issues affecting the implementaion of telecommunication services? 2 - Technology assessment. We need to see where Columbus is and where it could be. a - What are the state-of-the-art and expected advances in telecommunication technology and services? Self-education is also needed here, for examples, what is bandwidth, what bandwidth is needed for different applications, the difference between analog and digital. I think we should think about changes that might occur in the future, from the development of optical computer, for example. b - What is the checklist by which a city like Columbus could evaluate its telecommunications infrastructure (including technology, human resources, and whatever else belongs on the checklist)? c - How does Columbus fare in such an evaluation? 3 - Recommendations. Based on our findings in steps 1 and 2, what course of action do we recommend to Columbus to position Central Ohio as a recognized center of excellence in telecommunications and information services? Whew. Yes, it's a tall order. Suggestions welcome. Please send copies or citations to articles you think would help us with any pieces of this. Please send me stuff you have written that would help us. Obviously, papers that are good summaries of big areas would be most helpful. Please tell me parts we've omitted (I hope they aren't big ones). Please call me, or send email, or send US mail. I am really excited that the Chamber thinks this is important enough to spend time on and I'm really pleased with the enthusiasm of my fellow committee members for this huge task. Jane Fraser 614-292-4129 jane@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Associate Director Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 ------------------------------ Subject: Description of Sprint Select Interstate Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 22:11:32 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Someone was asking about Sprint Select. From this month's bill insert: ...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 5pm to 8am and on weekends. Additional hours in that period are billed at $6.50 per hour, prorated per minute used. ...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 five percent off all direct dial intrastate and international, as US Sprint carried calls. Additional calls cost $6.50 per hour, prorated ... and you can receive the same discounts for daytime Dial 1 service and other direct dial calls as you do with Sprint Select Interstate. It's not clear to me that this is a very good plan, not that it is any different that the AT&T ROA plan. I took a look at the bill I received with the flyer. I had 403 minutes of direct dial calls, of which 85% were evening/weekend calls. The average cost for these calls was .11 per minute (including the Sprint volume discount). Sprint Interstate costs .13 per minute for the first hour and .11 per minute thereafter. If you have Sprint Plus (minimum of $8 usage per month), you get the additional hour rate. What's the advantage? Now, the California intrastate rates might be a better deal, but I live in Michigan! Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 Date: 8 Oct 90 17:45:23 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <13076@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kf5iw!jim@central.uucp (Jim Blocker) writes... >Recent talk in the Digest regarding the "censored" _Ramparts_ article >on how to steal from Ma Bell made me remember a three-part series of >articles that appeared in _73 Magazine_ (an amateur radio magazine) >back in 1975. These articles were probably very damaging to TPC since >explicit details were provided in one of the articles on how to bypass >coin-phone and long distance charges. >Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. >They make for some very interesting reading! Odds are your library won't have them. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. filed suit against "73, Inc., a foreign [not CA] Corporation, Spenser Whipple Jr.[Peter Stark] , Wayne Green, Virginia Londner Green, and Does 1 through 200, Inclusive" (where the Does were all employees of 73 Inc.). The Superior Court of the State of California ruled, in judgement C 126265, that Each of the Defendants, and each person acting in concert with it, him, or her, is hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained from disseminating, publishing, printing, selling, giving, transferring, or conveying by any means or by any manner, plans instructions, or advice respecting the making, assembly, acquistion, possession, or use of any instrument, apparatus or device, strategem, code, scheme, deception, false pretense or trick which the Defendant knows, or by reasonably investigation should know, has as its purpose the avoidance of charges for the use of telephone, telegraph, and/or any othertype of telecommunications service in which the Bell System is a participant.... Notice to Libraries. Within sixty (60) days following entry of this judgement, Defendant 73 Inc., shall notify each subscriber to 73 Magazine as of June 1975 that appears to 73, Inc. from its subscriber list to be a library, of the existence and contents of this judgement and shall request that each such library refrain from displaying or circulating the article complained of in the complaint on file herein, or any reprint or copy thereof. The notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested... etc. etc., including destruction of the article from the back issues archive. Old Ma Bell sure played hardball. That's just a small excerpt from the judgement, filed Jan. 12, 1976. Of course, subscribers have their copies. Fred R. Goldstein k1io Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 8 Oct 90 23:56:30 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <13051@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mitel!spock!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article <12978@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred > R. Goldstein) writes: > >bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between > >North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio > >because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're > >mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the > >network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). > Actually, if you decoded ulaw with an Alaw decoder, or vice versa, the > difference is practically inaudible compared to the use of the proper > decoder. However, the conversion is made anyway, in order to meet the > quantization requirements. While it is true that the mu-law and A-law encoding/decoding curves are very similar, the actual digital representation of the signals is quite different, requiring code conversion to be intelligible. Mu-law and A-law codecs both use a quasi-logarithmic transfer function, to obtain optimal signal-to-noise ratios over a wide dynamic range. The quasi-log characteristic is achieved by breaking a non-linear transfer function into a series of linear "chords", with each chord consisting of several equal-sized steps. The step size is doubled for each successive chord (the piecewise approximated curve is symmetrical about zero). Thus, for a given full-scale value, signals closer to zero are encoded with greater precision than would be obtained with a linear code. The resulting encoding gives nearly equal stepsize (when measured in dB) for signals within the encoding range. The dynamic range of the mu-law codec is approximately 72 dB, which compares well to the 42 dB range of a linear 8-bit code (seven bits plus sign). The mu-law function provides eight chords, of 16 steps each, while for some reason, the European A-law standard has a first chord of 32 steps, and six remaining chords of 16 steps. Mu-law provides better S/N over the full range, while A-law gives reduced distortion at low levels. These differences are almost inaudible, but the standards threw in a big monkey wrench. Mu-law encoding could be called "bit-inverted sign-magnitude", where "positive full scale"= 10000000 "positive zero" = 11111111 "negative zero" = 01111111 "negative full scale"= 00000000 A-law inverts alternate bits, to give: "positive full scale"= 10101010 "positive zero" = 11010101 "negative zero" = 01010101 "negative full scale"= 00101010 I guarantee you, this WILL be noticed! Still, as far as standards are concerned, I guess we "telecom types" don't have it as bad as some other technical fields... Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Telemarketing Under the Influence Date: 9 Oct 90 04:56:48 GMT Received a strange call on my answering machine tonight. Several minutes of party noises and background voices, followed by a giggling female voice giving an MCI sales pitch. Things must be slow at the MCI telemarketing center. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Mental Harassment Date: 8 Oct 90 12:32:40 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >On the radio and in the newspaper today have been articles >about a state mental patient making dozens of obscene phone calls to a >couple. The calls started last Friday and kept up over the weekend. Why can't the telco get involved in this? "Hello, Director of Mental Health Services? We have traced a number of harassing calls as originating at your facility. As you may know, the subscriber is responsible for calls made from his phone. If these calls continue, we will disconnect all your phone service, except that in an emergency, they will be allowed to dial '911', or be dialed from '911'. "You mean you're going to disconnect all the phones at the hospital?" "No, sir, your account covers all the phones at all the State Mental Health facilities in the state. Oops, we just had another call. I'm sorry, but we're disconnecting your service. Please come to our Business Office on Monday, since we're five minutes from closing now, and you won't be able to call. " It would seem to me that calls like these are just as much an emergency and "harm to the network" (therefore justification for immediate disconnection) as someone whose phone is injecting 30 kiloVolts into his local loop. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: As clever as your scenario is, of course it would not really happen. State government and politics play a big role in the success of any telco's existence. Another solution might be to install all COCOT-style payphones for the patients to use. Maybe the patients would get tired of the extremely high rates and poor grade of service rendered. Maybe they would vandalize the phone, etc .... .... And speaking of COCOTs ... ( I needed that lead in!) ... in the next issue of the Digest, you will meet a *real* *live* *COCOT* *owner*. Yes! One has consented to be interviewed in the columns of this little journal. They are an extremely rare breed, so treat him gently and kindly. Watch for issue 725 to hit your email box. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #724 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00955; 10 Oct 90 4:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31800; 10 Oct 90 3:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14067; 10 Oct 90 2:13 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 2:06:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #725 BCC: Message-ID: <9010100206.ab32251@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 02:06:01 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 725 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [B. Churchfield] Re: More COCOTery [Tom Coradeschi] Re: More COCOTery [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Dana Paxson] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Dave Smith] 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Richard Szabo] Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 [ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122] Re: Credit Card Codes [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [J. Hhultman] Re: SPRINT Appointment Book [Toby Nixon] Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! [Mark Steiger] Re: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed [Mark Steiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Oct 90 13:27:00 EST From: B CHURCHFIELD Subject: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Moderator's Note: Today I saved the best for first. Say howdy to Mr. Churchfield, who wishes to recant and give his public Confession to the entire congregation here assembled. PAT] ------------------ I own one if these detestable devices, and it is detestable. In fact I get physically sick whenever I see a payphone now. I read the Digest daily and find the COCOT flames very interesting, but quite possibly unfair in some cases. I would quess that a significant portion of COCOTs are a one or two unit mom and pop operation, as my own. In my case after going to a couple of Small Buisness Expos, I became interested in vending to supplement my income. The one drawback to vending is restocking machines. A payphone doesn't have that problem; you just take money out. I called a local vending machine company and sure enough they had payphones for sale and would get back to me. Next day a salesman called and could let me have a phone on location that was generating $500/mo in coin and would only cost me $4500 with a 5/yr location lease. Sounded good but I wanted to see records. No problem -- that info could be provided. That afternoon the salesman called back and said that someone else had a deposit and if I wanted that location I would have to act within the hour. So "stupid" me bought it. Once it was installed I am told that the vendor is also the AOS and that was where the real money would come from (GREAT$$$$!) I have access to the phone counters as it is intelligent, but was provided with limited instructions and was told not to play with them as I would cause the phone to work improperly. My association with the AOS has been bad. I have been ripped on AOS commisions constantly as there is no accountability. The location averages $150/mo in a good month and that is gross; you then have to deduct telco charges and location commission so I am basically losing money on the whole deal. I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. (The vendor did not do this on install or any service calls.) But the guy at "Joe's Bar" or "Jim's Gas and GO" who also owns a COCOT is at the mercy of the vendor who programmed his phone and is unaware of the problem. It doesn't take very many $60 service calls to unjam a coin slot or $100 to replace a handset to put these people in the red, as a payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company or an AOS who is at the root of the problem. [Moderator's Note: Thank you, Mr. Churchfield, for an interesting account of your experience with COCOTery. All of us appreciate your candor. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 11:38:34 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armaments RDE Center John Higdon writes: >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. >COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), >hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are >people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. They >include store owners, groups of investors, individuals who were sucked >in on the latest (a few years ago) way to "cash in on the newest >investment opportunity". I must agree with John. A few years back, I had a roommate who was into Amway. This was gonna make him rich (he was sure of it). One of the Amway rackets was ... you guessed it: COCOTs. I don't think he ever sold one of them, but that gives you an idea of the type of Joe who gets into that business. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Well John, Tom, today you found one here in the Digest. I hope I made your day! PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 9 Oct 90 12:10:34 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 9 at 2:05, Martin B Weiss writes: > Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to > turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an > correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to > an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more > successful. But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not been possible with pay phones. First, competing phones are not usually found in close proximity. More and more, you can be assured that if you see a COCOT, a utility phone WON'T be found nearby. This is possibly for the reasons that you cite: the utility phones would, indeed, sap business from a COCOT. But the consumer doesn't control the playing field. If a COCOT owner discovers that a utility phone is causing him trouble, he has it removed -- either directly or by putting pressure on his neighbors. The other side of the coin involves informed choices. There was a time when a Pac*Bell phone and a COCOT were installed side-by-side at a store near Stanford. I stood and watched as one person after another walked up to the COCOT, ignoring the utility phone. Most of these people made simple local calls, but for some reason the COCOT seemed more attractive. (Yes, the Pac*Bell phone worked.) A public phone is supposed to be an instrument of convenience. One doesn't usually walk or drive around "shopping" for the best payphone bargain. Back in pre-MFJ days, it wasn't necessary. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:05:02 EDT From: Dana Paxson Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY In article <13090@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized >tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending >instrument. I was getting out of my car at a local bookstore one night when I saw an angry-looking man whirl away from an outdoor pay phone, and with a simple, powerful, belt-level move like a right hook, he ripped the handset, cable and all, right out of the box. I didn't get in his way. I didn't address the issue in any way ... but I sure remembered it. Dana Paxson Systems Architecture Computer Consoles, Inc., an STC Company 97 Humboldt Street Rochester, New York 14609 716 654-2588 ------------------------------ From: Dave Smith Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 9 Oct 90 23:09:09 GMT Reply-To: Dave Smith Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA How about instead of printing "OUT OF ORDER" on the sticker, printing "RIP-OFF" and then have the reasons. This is better in three ways. 1) People dialing for an emergency won't be confused (although the phone may not let them dial 911, but there's no good way to check that.) 2) Even if someone breaks through the sticker with a coin to make a call, people will still get the message that they shouldn't use the phone. 3) They're more likely to tell whoever's running the phone (if they're available) that they're an SOB. A busted phone is an inconvenience (remember, the average Joe isn't going to understand the reasons on the label, they'll just think it's broken); a scam is an outrage. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com ------------------------------ From: Richard Szabo Subject: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu Date: Wed 10 Oct 90 00:00:00 GMT Excuse me if this has been answered before; I'm new to the list. In attempting to use my MCI card by dialing 950-1022 from a certain COCOT I got a COCOT recording telling me to deposit 25 cents for the first three minutes. On another COCOT I've used dialing 950-1022 causes the LCDs to light ablaze with the words "FREE CALL"! Aren't 950-xxxx numbers supposed to be free? Rich Szabo Cleveland, Ohio, USA Internet: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes, 950 calls are supposed to be free of charge to the caller. They are sort of like 800 numbers; the charge for the call is paid by the OCC you are using to route your call. Readers, if your labels do not include this additional audit item, maybe it should, although its one of the more obscure things that most users of COCOTs would not understand very well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: munnari!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 ( Clarification from Oz) Date: 9 Oct 90 11:51:58 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <13105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > Very recently in this Digest was published the following number > which would be dialed from the Netherlands: 096-114-112 > ... where I am told (via the Digest) that 09 is the international > access code in the Netherlands. > I tried dialing 011-61-14112 from the U.S., and the call was > intercepted (could not be completed as dialed) before leaving the U.S. > My list of Australian area codes includes 1 for "Telecom services". > And from a little further back in this Digest, I had 0014-881-877 > listed for Sprint access from within Australia. In Australia: 0100 Overseas faults and difficulties 0101 Operator connected calls overseas from private phone 0102 Overseas call charge enquiries 0103 Overseas DA 0107 Op connected calls OS from payphone 0108 Op connected calls to ships at sea (DD not available, unlike UK) 011 Operator connected calls from private phone 012 LD Charge enquiries 013 Local DA 014 Recorded message saying "Number not connected" 015 " 016+6D Telecom Australia pagers pseudo area code 0175 LD DA 0176 Operator connected calls from a payphone 018 Cellular phones pseudo area code 019 Does not give recording, but I don't know what 019x does (not listed) 0011 Voice IDD access 0012 Voice IDD with automatic ring-back of call cost 0013 Not used 0014 International toll free numbers 0015 Fax/data IDD access 0016,0017,0018,0019 not assigned as far as I know 002,003,004 are area codes in Tasmania. ( International +61 02 +6D ) 0055 kickback services like 1-900, 976-, 0898 etc 006 Not used as far as I know 007 NON CELLULAR mobile phones (possibly no longer active) 008 Toll free like 1-800, 0800 etc 009 Not used as far as I know I hope this is clarification enough of all 00x and 01x numbers in Oz. ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Credit Card Codes Date: 9 Oct 90 02:05:30 GMT Organization: uvabick zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >Technological American Party (TAP), and its predecessor Youth >Information Party Line (YIPL) did publish the credit card codes, >several years running. >BTW - does anyone know what became of TAP? TAP in the old form does not exist anymore. The last person responsible for its publication was Cheshire Catalyst (Richard Cheshire). Many people paid for his food while they thought they would still get issues. There have been a couple of attempts at making a 'new tap', but none of them captured the spirit of the old (I think at least). The current TAP comes out of Kentucky (P.O. Box 20264, Louisville, KY 40220 to be precise). Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM Any opinions in this posting are wasted on you | tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 03:18:37 EST From: jhultman@beethoven.helios.nd.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame In article <13166@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: >Why not, assuming one had the evidence in hand that a particular call >attempt was probably fraudulent? It seems hard to believe that any >carrier would dissallow entire classes of calls unless presented with >evidence showing genuinely massive fraud. ^^^^^^^^ This may be a stupid question, but has anyone actually *SEEN* any reports docuenting fraud based on ethnic origin from *ANY* carrier? Or are the LD companies just claiming that fraud exists, when in actuality there is some other (equally arbitrary) reason for (dubious legality) redlining? I think what we might have here is garden-variety discrimination. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: SPRINT Appointment Book Date: 8 Oct 90 16:41:38 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <13126@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator writes: > Finally, the tax on 'both amounts' refers to the original diary at the > introductory price and the additional diaries you order at the regular > price. It does *not* refer to tax on shipping and handling. This varies on a state-by-state basis as well. I called the Georgia state Department of Revenue about practice shortly after moving to Atlanta from Tallahassee, and was told that Georgia law does indeed allow sales tax to be charged on shipping and handling. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 AT&T: !tnixon Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: +1-404-446-6336 MCI: TNIXON UUCP: ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 14:22 EDT From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13140@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > ...single phone or one line of a 1A2 system ... SMDR... It may not do all you want, and I cringe at the thought of recommending this particular source, but you might look at Radio Shack's gadget. ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:35:39 (CDT) Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! Did anyone videotape this episode of NOVA? I think I missed it. :( [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: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:39:10 (CDT) Subject: Re: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed In the September or October issue of {Popular Science}, they give lots of detalis on the crash along with a sample of the code that caused the problem. Check with the library. They probably have a copy there somewhere. [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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #725 ******************************  ISSUE 722 WAS LATE ARRIVING AND APPEARS NEXT HERE. THEN FOLLOWS 726.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01597; 10 Oct 90 5:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30322; 9 Oct 90 2:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28101; 9 Oct 90 1:20 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 1:10:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #722 BCC: Message-ID: <9010090110.ab15375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Oct 90 01:10:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 722 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Strange Ratemaking in Massachusetts [John R. Covert] Voicemail Pirates at 3 O'clock! [William Degnan] Ringing Nuisance [Matt Simpson] ESF Framing Bits [was Re: An Introduction to ISDN] [Chip Rosenthal] Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) [Macy Hallock] Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [Henry Mensch] HELP: Bridge or Router for Two LANs [Tanju Cataltepe] Fraudulent Coin Calls [Dan Hepner] One Way of Answering to Annoying Answering Machine Messages [Alex Cruz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 21:34:51 PDT From: "John R. Covert 09-Oct-1990 0003" Subject: Strange Ratemaking in Massachusetts The Massachusetts DPU has approved an extremely strange set of rate changes for New England Telephone. Unlimited residence rates are increased about $3 per month; rates for measured residence service are increased $1.50 per month plus the elimination of the 30 message unit ($0.0898 x 30 = $2.69) allowance. Residential Touch-Tone is increased from $0.58 to $0.98 per month. The filing proposed no increase in business rates; I'm not sure what was approved. Local calling areas for some (but not all) towns were increased slightly, mostly to make sure that adjacent towns were more likely (but not always) to be local. But the really strange stuff happened with intra-LATA toll. Massachusetts has two LATAs served by New England Telephone: the western LATA (413) and the eastern LATA (617-508). Previously, toll rates within both LATAs were the same. There were the following mileage bands and rates: Day Evening Night 0-10 .19 .09 .12 .05 .07 .03 11-14 .26 .12 .16 .07 .10 .04 15-19 .32 .14 .20 .09 .12 .05 20-25 .38 .15 .24 .09 .15 .06 26-33 .43 .17 .27 .11 .17 .06 34-43 .48 .19 .31 .12 .19 .07 44-55 .51 .20 .33 .13 .20 .08 56-70 .53 .21 .34 .13 .21 .08 71-85 .54 .22 .35 .14 .21 .08 86-up .55 .23 .35 .14 .22 .09 These rates (plus a .44 surcharge) continue to apply unchanged to calls from coin phones (sent paid) and charged to calling cards. They also apply (with higher surcharges) to all other types of operator assisted calls. But here's where it gets weird. For calls dialled from residence phones, the 15-19 band becomes 15-up, so there is a significant rate reduction for calls over 19 miles. But business lines get a better deal. Regardless of distance, they pay one cent per message plus 13.5 cents per minute (day), 7 cents (evening), and 5.1 cents (night). For Boston customers, where everything within 15 miles is local, this is quite a significant reduction, especially for short calls (like telemarketing). Now, to get weirder. In the western LATA, direct dialled calls from both residence and business phones are charged at one cent per message plus 5.5 cents per minute peak (9A-9P) and 3.6 cents per minute off-peak, regardless of distance. Note that with residence message units at 8.98 cents and business message units at 11.1 cents (for five minutes) this makes short toll calls cheaper than local calls! Intra-LATA WATS lines are eliminated. john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 15:04:12 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Voicemail Pirates at 3 O'clock! Organization: Communications Network Solutions (512) 323-9383 An Associated Press article recently reported that in Kingsport, TN, a "computer hacker is tapping into voice mail telephone messages and replacing them with explicit sexual descriptions. A United Telephone Co. Spokesman said they had received 70 complaints. "It's the first time we've had a problem to this degree," he said. The company began offering the service two years ago and has had a few isolated incidents like this. The FBI and local police have been asked to investigate. How does this happen? United Telephone says subscribers frequently use the last four digits of their telephone number as their access code. It is easy to remeber, but just as easy to crack. We have written often about passwords, and access codes. But, United Telephone is not our client and they have apparently not adaquately stressed the importance of having access codes that aren't easily guessable -- until now. They say someone is using a computer to figure out the codes. Perhaps that is true, but it doesn't take a computer ... or a mental giant to do it. If it is a four-digit code, there aren't that many combinations to try. "1234" and "4321" are always real good "first guesses". What security measures did United Telephone take to protect their subscribers? With 70 complaints (this time), probably very few measures were taken. What can system managers do to help secure systems? Make your codes long enough to be difficult to crack. (Four digits are _not_ enough.) Permit variable-length codes (requiring at least six digits). This adds additional combinations. Individuals wishing to have better security can choose longer access codes. Change codes more frequently than you now do. In some cases, changing codes _once_ is more often than you do now. You know who you are. (Does somebody else know, too?) Is a mailbox access number predictable from the its phone number? Is the access code predictable too? How many attempts with a bad passcode will trigger a security response? Is the system "too" user friendly? As business become more and more dependent on electronic communications, it becomes increasingly important to business survial to insure that these assets are protected. William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39.5!William.Degnan ARPA: William.Degnan@p5.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 11:45:37 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Ringing Nuisance Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I have occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer at about 6 AM. At first, I assumed it was an unwanted side-effect of their nightly testing, and just ignored it, thinking they would eventually fix the problem. Finally, after being awakened about 5:30 one morning by a continous ring which continued till I picked up the phone, I called repair service. The serviceman who was dispatched had no idea what could have caused the continous ring, but confirmed that the brief jingles were being caused by their daily testing, which occurs between 4-6 AM. He did not seem to think that this was a problem which would be, or needed to be, fixed. He said most people just sleep through it. Since I don't get awakened every day, I'm not sure whether it rings every day, and I'm just sometimes in a deep enough sleep that it doesn't bother me. But on the days that it does awaken me, I am definitely aggravated. Short of unplugging my phones at night, does anyone have any idea how I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central Bell that is something they can and should fix? ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: ESF Framing Bits [was Re: An Introduction to ISDN] Date: 8 Oct 90 15:01:46 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX In article <13087@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of >network managment data. That "facilities data link" seems to be a frequently underutilized feature. Part of the problem is that different carriers and organizations (and vendors) have defined different standards for what should appear in this channel. Another problem is that the carriers standards usually define a way for them to monitor performance of the user equipment, but don't provide users' the ability to monitor the performance of their network. That is, the carriers are happy to take information, but not give it, and thus many folks are unhappy about that missing capability as well. (I've been away from the specs and pubs and TR's for almost a year now. Maybe the situation has improved.) The big thing ESF gets you which is used universally is a six-bit CRC to provide a check on each 24-frame superframe. Chip Rosenthal Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:24 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <13144@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon (Fellow GTE Victim) writes: >I remember one time, late at night, when my car was acting funny out >in the desert. No cellular service was available (there is now, thank >goodness) but there was a gas station at hand. Unfortunately, it was >closed and the COCOT was apparently powered from the pump circuit, >since it was dead. This was one of the most frightening experiences to >date related to a COCOT. This was always a problem, even before COCOT's came into being. As a 20+ year telephone man, I can tell you that I never, ever travel without a butt-in and a few hand tools in my briefcase. A good butt set is better than a mobile phone. (This also makes for interesting conversations at the security X-ray at the airport.) My car broke down our in the country a few years ago. One house in sight. No one home. Since this was my wife's car, no IMTS mobile phone. So, out comes the butt set, I make a credit card call off the house's protector, and my brother is on his way to get us. Same story for a problem at a construction site a couple of years ago. I also use it to summon telco repair to aid customers, friends and the general public when needed. I have also summoned police and medical aid when the need arose. Sort of a telecom good samaritan gesture... Bear in mind, I use this tool only when necessary and in a responsible manner. I also get asked to fix phones a lot when people see it. (which I often do). I have also found other uses for traveling butt sets ... did I ever tell you about my trip to Cancun? I fixed two phone lines for a condo owner while I was there (who I met by accident) and he paid me back with a very enjoyable two days of personal sightseeing and use of a car. Now, lets ask wb8foz about using a butt-set in Havana... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 19:36:05 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Organization: MIT Project Athena Network Services Evangelist Subject: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any reason why they wouldn't do this? Clues will be welcome. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell is willing to issue one bill each month showing all numbers 'associated' with a main number provided the service is at the same location and the phones are on the same prefix and in the same billing cycle. This is good since it allows the useage from all lines in the account group to mutually contribute to volume discounts in pricing, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:50:40 EDT From: Tanju Cataltepe Subject: HELP: Bridge or Router for Two LANs Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am asking this question for a friend in a Turkish university. They have two LANs (Ethernet) of Sun's and Apollo's. These LANs are located in buildings a few miles apart. They cannot put in a direct connection, but they have 4800-9600 bps modems. They want to be able to use TCP/IP applications such as Telnet and ftp between the LANs utilizing the modems. I think the boxes they need are called "bridge" or "router" boxes. Their question is where can they buy these from? Any experiences, tips and pointers will be appreciated much. Tanju Cataltepe e-mail: tanju@honet7.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 17:25:27 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Fraudulent Coin Calls [The Moderator writes] >It still does not lessen the illegality of it, nor for MCI. >You cannot take a group of people, based on their ethnic origin, for >example Chinese or Egyptian people -- and who, after all, would be the >most likely users of international calls to those countries? -- and >say or imply to them "you cannot be trusted to make a call to your >home country on credit; you are likely to defraud us." Why not, assuming one had the evidence in hand that a particular call attempt was probably fraudulent? This seems to have little to do with ethnic origin and much more to do with a systematic analysis of actual fraud. Given the very low actual marginal cost to the phone company of allowing one fraudulent call, it seems hard to believe that any carrier would dissallow entire classes of calls unless presented with evidence showing genuinely massive fraud. I'm puzzled by the Moderator's strong stance on this issue; does he have reason to believe that there really isn't massive fraud? Does he suggest that massive fraud must be tolerated (and paid for by you know who) to protect some "presumption of innocence"? Does he actually believe that MCI or AT&T really don't want the money of certain ethnics? Dan Hepner dhepner@hpda.hp.com [Moderator's Note: In lots of other ways, 'presumption of innocence' is a very important and desirable attitude, regardless of cost. Why do the telcos get to be an exception? Yes, there are problems with fraud, but there are protective techniques in place. A call 24 hours per day to AT&T at 800-222-0300 will put an immediate stop to charging on a stolen card. I've done it when my card was stolen. The hot PIN goes on a negative list in the computer and presto: no more charges allowed to that number and PIN. How does VISA, American Express or Diner's deal with a stolen card? How do banks deal with stolen ATM cards? Even if you did have massive evidence of fraud from a certain group -- and the Nigerian credit card ring working here in Chicago last year was a good example of this -- the federal law in the United States regards credit opportunities is plain: you deal with *single individuals* and their credit-worthieness, not with groups of people. And personally, no I do not think the people of any one country are more likely to commit fraud than another country. Even the 'Nigerian problem' here a year ago did not indict all Nigerians. Visa, Diner's and American Express cannot turn down citizens of China, Israel or India as a class; AT&T / MCI should not be allowed to do it either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alex Cruz Subject: One Way of Answering to Annoying Answering Machine Messages Date: 9 Oct 90 04:20:45 GMT Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC) Many stories have been told on the subject of answering machine messages. I don't have one. On the other hand, I can tell you what I do when I call for the nth time the same person, namely the same machine and I get the usual boring "Hello ... Hello ... guess I'm not here..." and "Hello? ... Hold on let me turn down my stereo..." messages: I simply start talking way before the beep and I modify my message just a little bit; something like this: MACHINE: "...so leave your name, number and a brief message and I will get back with you as soon as I can" BEEEP ME: "...and that's why I decided to call you; I'm sorry about the news and don't hesitate to call me next week to that number. Thanks a lot." CLICK. One friend of mine confessed recently that he returned his brand new Panasonic and got another one after I did it to him a couple of years ago. Alex Cruz Consultant - American Airlines Decision Technologies - Dallas, TX Associate - Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications - Columbus, OH ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #722 ******************************  ISSUE 722 OUT OF ORDER IN TRANSMISSION. 726 COMES NEXT.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27287; 11 Oct 90 1:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09874; 10 Oct 90 23:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13078; 10 Oct 90 22:36 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:08:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #726 BCC: Message-ID: <9010102208.ab07920@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:07:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 726 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Mark Steiger] Re: Speakerphones and the Courts [jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com] Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Mike Payer] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Tad Cook] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [John Higdon] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [Vance Shipley] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [B. Bruce] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [M. Dorl] Re: Ringing Nuisance [John B. Meaders Jr.] Re: Ringing Nuisance [Bill Berbenich] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Dan Hepner] Re: SMDR Device For 1A2/Single Line [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:41:35 (CDT) Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Talkng about fiber cables getting cut, a cable here was cut and made it so no one in morthern Minnesota could reach 911. All 911 traffic was sent through this cable. It is nice to know that some contractor could make a life-or-death situation into a death situation. [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: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Oct 9 09:26:08 EDT 1990 Subject: Re: Speakerphones and the Courts In v10 #715, Jeff Carroll writes: >Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a >speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use.... Warning! The phone on my desk, a fairly common AT&T model for System 85/ Generic 2, has a speaker, but no external microphone. When I use the speaker, anyone in my office can hear the conversation. Because I still speak into the handset, the person on the other end will not hear the telltale speakerphone cut-in/cut-out. I wish home speakerphones would use this arrangement, as it would allow my wife and me to "share" calls without subjecting the other party to that annoying speakerphone sound. ------------------------------ From: Mike Payer Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 9 Oct 90 17:17:33 GMT Reply-To: Mike Payer Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA In article <13070@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 714, Message 7 of 12 >A local news story yesterday gave a disturbing example of how San >Francisco Police Department sets the priorities on 911 calls. A young Clayton, I do a lot of work interfacing with law enforcement on 911 type calls. And I can tell you for a fact that when a call comes in from a coin phone the response of the dispatch centers in many cases is "Oh a coin phone, oh well". As a result of this I have told my family and friends that if they are at pay phone they would be much better off dialing "0" and just screaming for help. The operator will have the number you called from and the law enforcement people seem to take these call more seriously. This may sound strange but it seems to be the way it works. I believe part of the problem is the high amount of prank called by teenagers to 911 on coin telephones. It's not unusual to see someone work their way from one end of town to the other dialing 911 on pay phones. Don't construe this as an excuse for the S.F.P.D. it's not. It's just the way the system works. Michael S Payer Jr Administrator FAX 415-867-0344 Emergency Control Center pacbell!pbecc!msp pacbell!pbhya!mpay ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 9 Oct 90 18:18:18 GMT In article <13068@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bgsuvax!jyoull@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Youll) writes: > Yesterday my secretary got hit with a call that went something like > this: > (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner > cartridges did you want this week?" > (sec'y) "Toner cartridges? Western Supply? What is this pertaining to?" > This is incredibly annoying, and the bastards don't even give you a > chance to find out who they are. No idents given, even if you ask. We > absolutely do not accept calls like this for more than the minute it > takes to figure out that it's an idiot and okay to hang up on them. > You might tell people to watch out for this ruse. We have had two or > three calls like this in the past couple months (that I know about). These are getting quite common. Our receptionist routes all calls like this to me, even though handling office supplies has nothing to do with my job description. They usually call and right off want to know the model number of our fax machine or copier. Then they act like they are our "regular supplier." The scam is, they want to find someone new or naive who will accept a delivery of this stuff, and they will tell you that they have a "fantastic deal" for you. I have fun trying to get these folks to give me some kind of basic information about who they are, where they are, etc. I rarely get them to tell me a last name, and the company names are always generic sounding (National Data Supply, etc). They never will give me an address, and rarely anything but an 800 number. Once I ask a couple of fundamental questions that people would normally ask before doing business, they hang up. One guy actually stayed on the phone a whole minute and a half. I joked with him that I was getting two or three calls a week like this, and "they always hang up on me." I got him to promise not to hang up, got a first and last name, a company name, but then he had trouble telling me where he was calling from. "California", he said. "Where in California?", said I. "Uh ... L.A.". I tried to get him to give me an address, and he choked. I asked again for "the actual physical address where you are now". He hung up! These guys must be working under a horrendous quota. 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls Date: 9 Oct 90 11:55:09 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 9 at 2:05, Andy Jacobson writes: > Apparently the EM switches can not support calls to non-ATT 800 > numbers. I attempted it in the first place to see if the ANI demo > would work from an EM switch, which I guess I'll never know as the > demo is now gone (at least from all the lines I've tried here in L.A.) The ANI demo worked just fine from my 5XB, so it would not be correct to say that it wouldn't work from mechanical switches. My XBar line can call any 800 number (in fact ANY number) that my 1ESS lines can call. This includes 10XXX, international, the works. It uses the NAC adjunct, which I had assumed to be installed in all mechanical switches requiring it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 01:44:08 GMT In article <13169@accuvax.nwu.edu> IZZYAS1@oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: >In reference to a long running debate some months back, when the ANI >demo did work, I tried it from UCLA's Northern Telcom PBX, and it of >course read back to me the outgoing trunk number, which is the main >incomming number for campus, and the only number associated with the >call. DID numbers normally don't show up on calls originating from >trunk groups. The Northern Telecom SL-1 (or Meridian 1 if you prefer) can be configured for either LDN (Listed Directory Number) or PDN (Private Directory Number) CLID. For each customer group in the switch a default is chosen as to which is sent. Any set can have LDN or PDN chosen to overide this. In short; DID numbers can and will appear in your CLID. vance ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 9 Oct 90 16:17:32 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Henry Mensch writes: > I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the > payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET > to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any > reason why they wouldn't do this? I have the same problem with the same LEC. My lines are in a hunt group even, but they have different classes of service. It is the class of service difference, they say, that makes them be billed seperately. One line in METRO (actually CIRCLE which includes METRO), and the other in CONTIG. If your lines are in the same exchange, they should be on the same billing cycle. N.B. that some Cambridge lines out of the same CO (Ware St., not Bent St.) can't be billed together and can't hunt to the other exchange. The problem here is some are stuck on the old # 1 ESS, and others are on the # 5 ESS. ------------------------------ From: "Michael (NMI" Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 10 Oct 90 13:30:22 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes... >I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the >payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET >to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any >reason why they wouldn't do this? I ordered a second line for my home the other day and was confronted with the same situation. The agent asked if I wanted one bill or two. I replied that I did not care. She then asked what kind of service I wanted. I told her I wanted 60 calls (our other phone is unlimited) and she said in that case, the two bill plan would be cheaper. I suspect that if I had ordered the same kind of service they would have combined the bills. Our phone book has a very good explanation of rates but no mention of this anomaly is included. Makes about as much sense as the $0.01 refund check my daughter got from Wisc Bell last week with $0.45 postage. Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet 1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706 ------------------------------ From: "John B. Meaders Jr." Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance Organization: Capitalist Warmongers, Inc. Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 02:30:43 GMT In article <13161@accuvax.nwu.edu> SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: >Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I have >occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer at >about 6 AM. This has happened here in Hopewell (C&P Telephone) to me, but since I'm usually at work for most of the day I haven't noticed it lately. What happens to me more often is a message on my answering machine, that turns out to be a bunch of clicks. Has anybody had this happen to them? What causes it? John B. Meaders, Jr. 510 Manchester Ct., Hopewell, VA 23806 Voice: 804-458-2983 Net: john@karnak.cactus.org or john@karnak ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance Date: 9 Oct 90 14:34:02 GMT Reply-To: Bill Berbenich Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons In article <13161@accuvax.nwu.edu> SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: [story of annoying early A.M. test ring and being shuffled off by local telco] >Short of unplugging my phones at night, does anyone have any idea how >I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central Bell >that is something they can and should fix? If these calls (rings) are annoying to you, call the SCB annoyance call bureau and report it. You just happen to know that the local telco is causing this annoyance, does that somehow make it okay whereas if Joe Q. Public was the instigator he would likely face some serious criminal harassment charges? If it annoys you, plain and simple, they should correct it. It may not be easy for them to undo and they may suggest that you turn your ringer off or disconnect your phone(s), but if that's unacceptable to you then be insistent. Start at the bottom and work your way up until you are satisfied. It may well be that this would go to the VP level before being corrected. As a later option, if telco tells you to get lost, you can go to the police and explain the situation. Keep records of names, dates, and times from the very beginning, because it will definitely be to your advantage to do so. The state public utilities commission might be receptive to a letter from you if the telco refuses to act in a timely manner, too. Quite likely, being the helpful and responsible folks that they are, the telco will be able to block your line from this testing and you won't have to be too insistent. :-) Bill Berbenich bill@trace.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 16:03:00 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls jhultman@beethoven.helios.nd.edu writes: >This may be a stupid question, but has anyone actually *SEEN* any >reports docuenting fraud based on ethnic origin from *ANY* carrier? >Or are the LD companies just claiming that fraud exists, when in >actuality there is some other (equally arbitrary) reason for (dubious >legality) redlining? I think what we might have here is garden-variety >discrimination. The Moderator's response referred to one actual case, but to believe that an LD company would arbitrarily redline is to not understand business. This is even more emphasized when considering the inconsequential nature of the loss when low frequency LD fraud is perpetrated. Dan Hepner [Moderator's Note: I assume you knew insurance companies used to redline entire neighborhoods where they thought the losses would be too great for them, based on neighborhood conditions. Most credit card agencies in the early days (circa 1955-70) used to redline in the same way because they figured with the kind of people living in the redlined area, there would simply be too many fraud and/or bad debt write-offs. The government finally had to stop them from doing it. Credit is extended to individuals, based on individual circumstances; it is not extended to neighborhoods, or groups of people of a certain ethnic origin. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Oct 90 22:32:02 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: SMDR Device For 1A2/Single Line Thanks, to several people, for referral to the RS device (if you made a direct message to me and havent gotten a reply, it's because my replies bounced back with your From address). I hopped over the nearest RS store (across the street !) and lo and behold, they had it as a 'managers special' (i.e. unadvertised) for $79.99, down from $ 99.99. I checked the latest catalog and couldn't find it listed there. Based upon some past experience with another phone attachment (43-233, Multiline controller for 1A2 system), this suggests it is being removed from the market and they are starting to clear stocks. Will probably wait a while and see how far it comes down - the controllers got down to 25% of original price, the last time I was able to find one anywhere. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #726 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28335; 11 Oct 90 2:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05182; 11 Oct 90 0:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09874; 10 Oct 90 23:48 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:37:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #727 BCC: Message-ID: <9010102337.ab14747@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:37:09 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 727 Inside This Issue: Professor-Confessor: Patrick A. Townson Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [John Higdon] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Peter da Silva] Re: More COCOTery [Martin B. Weiss] Re: More COCOTery [Bob Yasi] Improved COCOT Sticker [Lang Zerner] Re: More COCOTery [Andrew Morley] Phone/Net Links to USSR [Jeff Sicherman] MCI Mail Rates Being Increased [Tad Cook] All These Sprint Calling Plans [Steve Elias] Sprint's Answer to ATT USA Direct / International 800 [Steve Elias] AT&T Calling Cards as ID [Bob Stratton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 10 Oct 90 16:52:05 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Mr. Churchfield's Confession brought the fallacy of COCOTs into even sharper focus. As before stated, the principle of COCOTism is to take a supplier (telco and IEC) and a customer (person on street) who have traditionally done business directly with each other via the public telephone and insert a middleman who expects a significant cut of the action. This means that either the supplier has to significantly discount to the COCOT operator, or the customer is expected to pay more. So far, it has been both, if not more of the latter. But Mr. Churchfield throws another whammy at us. A COCOT feeds not one but many new mouths (owner, vendor, AOS, site owner). And more importantly, the person responsible (owner) is not the person in control (vendor). Is there any wonder that the technical violations abound? Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs? With the new Federal legislation, even the AOS operators will no longer be laughing all the way to the bank. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:27:33 GMT In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu> churchfield1@ncf.al.alcoa.com (B. CHURCHFIELD) confesses: > [... a] payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual > COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company > or an AOS who is at the root of the problem. Do y'all remember the initial message I posted on this subject, asking folks to consider the poor COCOT owner before siccing the federales on them? I think I'm vindicated by this message. In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon professes: > But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, > informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not > been possible with pay phones. As Mr. Churchfeild's Confession indicates, this is also true for the *owner* of the COCOT. Perhaps instead of attacking the COCOT, point your wrath at the AOS operators/dealers. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 10 Oct 90 12:56:11 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon professes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 725, Message 3 of 13 >On Oct 9 at 2:05, Martin B Weiss writes: >> Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to >> turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an >> correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to >> an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more >> successful. >But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, >informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not >been possible with pay phones. >The other side of the coin involves informed choices. There was a time >when a Pac*Bell phone and a COCOT were installed side-by-side at a >store near Stanford. I stood and watched as one person after another >walked up to the COCOT, ignoring the utility phone. Most of these >people made simple local calls, but for some reason the COCOT seemed >more attractive. (Yes, the Pac*Bell phone worked.) >A public phone is supposed to be an instrument of convenience. One >doesn't usually walk or drive around "shopping" for the best payphone >bargain. Back in pre-MFJ days, it wasn't necessary. I agree, John. In fact, the issue of informed choice is much more involved. In a recent paper that I wrote and submitted to the FCC on the NPRM, I argue that informed choice is virtually impossible because of delayed price feedback -- you don't know how much an operator is going to cost until you get the bill, several months later. The literature on the economics of information, such as price search behavior, is based on immediate price feedback (for example, shopping for shoes or baby furniture). It has been able to explain things like price dispersion and the clustering of similar merchants, etc. Even with immediate price feedback, fairly strong information is required of the consumers in many circumstances similar to the AOS case (i.e., where assymetrical information exists). I think that the only real solutions to this problem would lie either in price regulation, as many consumer advocates and legislators suggest, or in requiring a display on telephone instruments that displays to the consumer the cost of the call in progress (or a good estimate thereof). The latter would solve the delayed price feedback problem. The other thing complicating the AOS/COCOT problem is that the competition faced by AOS's is by other AOS's, not by consumers. Thus, we would expect commissions to rise as one AOS tried to get the business of a hotel or COCOT from another AOS, because that is one of the primary modes of competition (of course, there is also competition in service). The only factor that dampens this price spiral is consumer familiarity with a particular telephone or hotel (because, in principle, each owner negotiates a separate deal with the AOS). Once consumers realize that a particular instrument or organization is a rip off, they will avoid it, which tends to moderate the prices. The problem, of course, is with a "new" or unfamiliar instrument. What I meant to suggest in my post is that if enough "ethical" people owned these phones and programmed them correctly, perhaps we could reverse some of the less favorable trends that we all see. Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 11 Oct 90 01:35:30 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles I spoke to Pac Bell this afternoon about COCOT regulations. 10xxx dialing is not required by the California PUC. I had thought this was what their August billing insert had said and wanted to confirm it before posting. They DID know the PUC complaint number right away, though, and I consider that big progress. That number in California is 800/648-6967. It was busy when I called. So it looks like two changes could be made to the labels -- re 10xxx and this 800 number! By the way, I haven't tried it but is it legally required for those blue AT&T non-coin payphones to let you use Sprint if you want? -- Bob Yazz -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 16:04:07 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Improved COCOT Sticker Here is a new and improved COCOT sticker with emergency dialing instructions. It also includes a toll-free number for reporting other illegal COCOTs. Enjoy! [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, the article sent by Lang was 38,000 bytes in length and could not be included here. It is in the Telecom Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) under the title 'cocot.complaint.sticker'. I know some of you cannot access the archives easily ... and I am reasonably certain Lang does not want to fill all the requests ... so those of you who can get it from the archives please do so. If you cannot access it there, then perhaps Mr. Zerner will mail it to you. Please don't bother him for it if you can use ftp to reach Telecom Archives or if you can use the server at bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu. Thanks. His *is* a better looking sticker, by the way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Morley A.B." Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 10 Oct 90 16:00:56 GMT Organization: University of Southampton, UK I'm sorry to ask such a seemingly simple question, bot what are COCOTs? Presumably something we're not blessed with in the UK. Andrew Morley, abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs [Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone. It is a type of pay telephone operated by a private company instead of the telephone administration. Subject to government regulations (and sometimes despite them!) the owner of the telephone sets the rates and standard of operation. Most are poorly operated and greatly overpriced. They tend to be located in places where more conventional pay telephones are scarce. Despite the fun with words we've been having the past couple days in the Digest, COCOTery and COCOTism are not a philosophy or religous practice. They are, however, a good reason for raising hell. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Oct 90 22:20:12 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Phone/Net links to USSR I know this is not on the usual subject of this forum, but some past postings indicate some knowledge of TELEcommunications in the USSR, maybe more than they have there given the apparent state of things over there (from news reports). This was a request posted to MEDNEWS readers by the moderator of that forum. In any case, it seems a healthy break from much of the bitching and complaining that often characterizes this Digest. If you can help or make any suggestions, please reply to the sinatory at the end of the message or myself and I will forward. Thanks VERY much. [ original message follows ] Could you please post following as an 'urgent' request for information, unless you happen to be able to answer it yourself. Thanks. I have been contacted by the Diabetes Forum administrator on CompuServe regarding the problem of diabetic children in the USSR. A group of parents in need of assistance with information and (to us) readily available material, had contacted him recently. We may be in a position to support these people in a very real sense, but the main problem right now is the almost total lack of communication with the area in question. We have an urgent need for a communications link with USSR not too distant from the town or city of "Krasnodar", zip code 350000. If someone does have knowledge of an Internet link in the USSR, or a FidoNet link, or any other useful network, please contact me as soon as possible at the address below. Help us help those children! Thanks. Martin Wehlou MD WEHLOU@BGERUG51.BITNET 72047,2444 at CompuServe Fax: 32-91-313312 Phone: 32-91-316740 ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 10 Oct 90 05:39:28 GMT With my MCI Mail bill today was an insert saying that they are going to have a rate change November 1. The rate for an MCI Mailbox will now be THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR! It was free when I signed up, then $15 a year. They are also raising Telex 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: All These Sprint Calling Plans Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 09:05:07 -0400 From: Steve Elias Ken Jongsma wrote about Sprint Select discount plan: > It's not clear to me that this is a very good plan, not that it is any > different that the AT&T ROA plan. I think the big difference between the Sprint Plus type plans and the ATT ROA plan is that Sprint gives you their lowest rate starting at 5pm weekdays, rather than ATT's 10 pm for Reach Out. (Normally, the lowest rates start at 11pm, as I'm sure you know!) These new Sprint plans (Sprint Select, Sprint Int**state) don't look all that interesting to me -- I think they are simply designed to counter to ATTs and MCIs calling plans, and perhaps to satisfy some California customers. (Hi John Higdon! Are you satisfied yet?) eli ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint's Answer to ATT USA Direct / International 800 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 09:30:01 -0400 From: Steve Elias One can now access US Sprint on calls from France to the US ... When I was in France last January, I was amazed at the lousy quality and number of dropped connections on ATT calls from Paris to Boston. If you have a Sprint FONcard and the good fortune to be in Paris, I'd appreciate a report of the quality and longevity of your phone calls! Also, Sprint international 800 service is now available from France and a few other countries. This is probably a result of the same technofeat that makes "Sprint Direct" (or whatever it's called) possible. The customer service rep tells me that my US 800 number is already dialable from France and the UK. eli ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 11:57:16 EDT From: Bob Stratton Subject: AT&T Calling Cards as ID? I share a house with two roommates, one of which has our phone in his name. I recently called AT&T to request a calling card in MY name, and was quite pleased to find that they sent me one, despite the fact that my name is different from the billing name for this number, AND that AT&T isn't my primary carrier. Reading through the literature, I noticed the usual fine print regarding usage, but was surprised to see text to the effect that "this is a credit card ..." and that billing errors are governed under the same (or a similar) set of laws as bankcards. They also had a paragraph about not using your calling card as a form of ID (A reasonable suggestion). To get to the interesting part: Last weekend I was in a local beach town with another reader of the digest, and we wanted to rent a movie from a local branch of a large video rental chain. As I was on a low-overhead trip, I didn't have any credit cards with me - and a credit card is a usual part of the membership registration process for places of this ilk. Imagine my surprise when the clerk said that a "calling card" was fine. I was quite exhausted after a long day, and my normal alarms didn't go off - so I let her have the number [Yes, yes I know ...]. I let her have my ATT card, although, in retrospect, I should have tossed her my MCI or C&W, just to watch the reaction. (I'm really curious.) It seems that this chain is using some sort of loss-prevention database system from a third party, as I noticed small signs about the system, complete with a silly tradename, which I can't remember - I presume the "calling card" requirement is imposed by the database provider. Needless to say, I'm going to be watching my LD bills like a hawk, and I think I'm going to ask the video chain for more details. Has anyone else run into this sort of thing? Bob Stratton | dsc3rjs@nmdsc{20 | 10}.nmdsc.nnmc.navy.mil [Internet] Stratton Systems Design | dsc3rjs@vmnmdsc.BITNET [BITNET only, please!] | +1 703 823 MIND [PSTNet] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #727 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01861; 11 Oct 90 5:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09662; 11 Oct 90 3:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01284; 11 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 2:39:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #728 BCC: Message-ID: <9010110239.ab29590@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Oct 90 02:38:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 728 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Booth 1000 at Interop '90 Wants You to Stop By [TELECOM Moderator] Old Telephone Identification [Roger Hoover] AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! [jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu] British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring [Julian Macassey] Re: Background Papers Wanted on Telecom [kdonow@cdp.uucp] Re: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) [Craig Watkins] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman] Telephone Harassment [Gordon Burditt] Last Laugh! Answering Machine Message [Gregg Squires] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:57:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Booth 1000 at Interop '90 Wants You to Stop By A piece of mail which unfortunatly just reached me yesterday discusses something of interest at Interop 90, going on now in Los Angeles. At Booth 1000, October 11-12 you will have an opportunity to review the latest implementation of Internet protocols for Unix System V Release 3 and 4 including: TCP/IP SNMP NetBIOS NFS Another theme at Booth 1000 is OSI/TCP coexistence. You will have a chance to review the software required to bridge TCP/IP and OSI networks. You will be able to see a high-performance emulation of STREAMS for non-Unix and real time systems which lets you use any STREAMS-based software product. Admittedly this is short notice. The mail seems to be slow arriving. If you plan on being at Interop '90 either Thursday or Friday you can call direct to Booth 1000: 213-453-8649. They are offering a personal tour to folks who stop in. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 10:54:39 -0400 From: Roger Hoover Subject: Old Telephone Identification I have a few old telephones of different styles. I am interested in finding out when they were manufactured and what years they were in common use. Are there any reference books that give information about and show pictures of old telephones? Alternatively, are there any telephone collectors out there who can tell me something about my phones. I would also like to replace the carbon microphones. (Yes, I have tried the Whap! method). Anyone know any sources? roger hoover rhoover@ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:29:16 EST From: jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu Subject: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! AT&T took out a full page ad on the back of today's (Wed Sep 10 1990) {Chicago Tribune} "Tempo" section. Imagine almost the full page in black with little bits of white text, then the normal black-on-white at bottom. "I'm sorry ... We don't offer directory assistance for Europe." "I'm sorry ... That's a country we don't fax to." "I'M SORRY ... I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO LOOK UP A NUMBER IN TOKYO." "I'm sorry ... but I can't put you through to Leningrad." "I'm sorry ... We don't handle calls to places like Madagascar." "I'M SORRY ... WE DON'T HAVE DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE FOR LONDON." "I'm sorry ... The only way you can call there is with AT&T." "I'm sorry..." "I'm sorry..." It's true, with another international long distance service, you could get more of some things. Like excuses. So before you make your next international call, call AT&T. 1 800 523-WORLD. With AT&T's quality and service, there's really no excuse for using anyone else. ------------------ Now imagine me rolling on the ground, about to die laughing. jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring Date: 10 Oct 90 14:59:26 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <13005@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TOBY@brownvm.brown.edu (Toby Loftus) writes: > I have a friend who is going to the UK soon and has a modem which will > support CCIT (?) protocols, which I understand are used in the UK. > What I would like is any information on how to physically connect the > modem to the UK outlets. I'm told that the UK has modular plugs, but > ones quite different from US plugs. Any suggestions on how to attack > this? Any company out there which supplies cords with a UK plug on > one end and a US plug on the other? I suppose this should become one of this groups "Frequently Asked Questions". Below is a file I keep on this matter. I hope it helps. Yes, I know various countries have silly protective regulations about what you can do with the service you are paying too much for. But I am interested in telecommunications not restrictive practices. British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring British phones have 3 wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip & Ring) coming into a house. There is no protector. In the primary jack in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its DC counterpart. See diagram: ----| |------O (3) | | (A) O----------------------O (2) (B) O----------------------O (5) Note: The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5. The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5. BT consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45 to 50 volts above ground. Wiring Colour Codes: The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired as follows: Pin # Wire colour 2 Blue/White 3 Orange/White 4 White/Orange 5 White/Blue END So if you have a US device that you need to wire into a UK jack this is what you do. Get a US line cord and cut the jack off one end. Go to your local UK electrical shop and have them terminate the end with a UK jack. The center two wires in a US line cord are the phone line, so they should terminate on UK jack pins 2 and 5. Then you plug the UK end into the wall and the US end into your phone, modem, answering machine etc. You can also buy a line cord with a US plug on one end and spade lugs on the other. Using a screwdriver you screw the line cord onto the terminals in a jack or junction box. This works all over the world. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 21:08:52 -0700 From: kdonow@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: Background Papers Wanted on Telecom Contact Mitchell Moss at New York University (Urban Planning). He's written some nice stuff assessing New York City's telecommunications infrastructure. Also John Gebosky in the NYC Office of Telecom should have some very useful information. Finally, I recall that Minneapolis commissioned a comparable study some years ago from some outfit called the Elra Group. Someone in the city government should be able to help. Good luck. Give me a ring at 202-863-0890 bif you want to talk more. Ken Donow National Center for Telecommunications and Information Policy 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Suite 220 Washington, DC 20024 ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) Date: 11 Oct 90 01:25:52 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13163@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Macy Hallock writes: > This was always a problem, even before COCOT's came into being. As a > 20+ year telephone man, I can tell you that I never, ever travel > without a butt-in and a few hand tools in my briefcase. I travel with a light (somewhat cheap) single piece phone, an RJ11 jack with spade leads and some jumper-clips (in addition to some RJ11 cables for a modem). Although quite possibly less reliable and less sturdy than the butt set, depeding upon type, it can be smaller, lighter, and certainly less expensive if you don't already have a butt set! Quite useful for voicemail, DISA, etc from non-TT hotel rooms. I second the motion on the hand tools (I recently picked up one of the small (small calculator-sized) DVM's for my case -- it was on sale at Radio Shack for around $15). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 11 Oct 90 01:34:50 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu>, B CHURCHFIELD confesses: > I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in > Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. Give the PUC a call; their 800 number should be in your phone book in the government section. They will probably take a while to answer (they seem to be understaffed -- big surprise, eh?), but they will probably be happy to send you a copy of the regulations dealing with COCOTs. There are certainly many, many that I did not cover -- I just went after the most annoying ones (to me). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 10:06:20 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [ Insert moderator's tirade here ] :-) I think my first statement adequately disclaimed any real legal expertise. My powdered wig may indeed be all wet. However, if expertise, legal or otherwise, is a criteria for commenting in the digest, I think the submission list will have to be cut down to a very few individuals, from what I have read here. I think PAT's logic circuit was left on hold :-). Not every email address, even when published, is designated or intended as the recipient of very large volumes of communications, any more than having your phone number in the white or yellow pages entitles people to overwhelm it with calls and make life miserable for you or make your phone (system) unavailable for practical use. Most of the phone numbers you cite as (counter)examples are intended and even promoted for such use and the consequential volumes are expected. The fact that they are often (wo)manned to handle the load indicates this. This applies also to sending communications to corporations in general, especially customer service and PUBLIC relations. > And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face > becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television > shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as > co-conspirators, right? PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium critical?) then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email messages. How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ? I will not repeat the arguments about the wisdom of civilized and organized argument as a form of lobbying over mass electronic yelling. Based upon past moderator's notes, I really expected a more 'moderate' point of view from PAT. Maybe he had a rough night - there sure was a deluge of digests to my mailbox. Hmmm, maybe I have an email harassment case there :-) Oops, I think I invited them by subscribing. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I do not think I said it would be 'neat' to overwhelm anyone with anything. I think a couple names and email addresses were given saying persons dissatisfied with some aspect of the service provided by the companies represented by those two gentlemen could write to them at the addresses provided. It is not harrassment when you write someone to express an opinion or complaint to them. Furthermore, I would have *no idea* how many people would be writing. Maybe everyone but a few people are happy with things the way they are. There is no deprivation of property involved. Those people are not being deprived of the use of their email service in any way. And what makes you think that anyone who would write to either of those persons would engage in 'electronic yelling'? And who are you to define 'electronic yelling'? You are making a lot of presumptions which are false on their face. Preprinted postcards and individually written letters flood into the offices of AT&T daily lobbying for one thing or another. Are those folks depriving anyone of the use of the mail? Both Mr. Allen and Mr. McGowan receive lots of mail from the public each day. Are those men, in your opinion so special, and so different that they should not have to read an email letter from a commoner? Your argument is still invalid. Finally, thanks for your comments about my logic circuits. I really appreciated that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Telephone Harassment Date: 9 Oct 90 05:59:13 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt Mr. Moderator, I urge you to be careful about posting calls for mass retaliation by phone. I would hate to lose the Telecom Digest because the government views it as a weapon of telephone harassment, regardless of how much the targeted government agencies deserve it. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with including email addresses found in public directories in the Digest, provided they are not presented with the idea of "let's bomb these guys into submission". Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon P.S. In light of recent budget problems, what would happen if ALL Federally- controlled prefixes moved into area code 900? [Moderator's Note: First, let's begin with you showing me where in the Digest you have ever seen a message saying 'bomb them into submission' or where you saw a message calling for 'mass retaliation by phone'. I am not going to waste space here reprinting all the original messages on the theme of 'who should we complain to about redlining by telcos on international card calls?' YOU go back and re-read them. Since email is as legitimate a form of communication as paper mail, then there is absolutely no reason why email letters cannot be sent to persons and corporations to express opinions and ask for explanations. It is not my concern if one person or one million people write. Second, you say 'you would hate to lose the TELECOM Digest because the government views it as a weapon of telephone harrassment' ... and that is all well and good, but until you can show me where you have given the same admonishment to the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post}, both of whom routinely urge their readers to contact legislators, corporations and government agencies regarding issues those two newspapers want to settle, then I'd suggest you stay off my case. I have more readers here each day than several hundred small town newspapers ... they should encourage readers to lobby on issues of importance but I should not? Third, your little postscript merits an answer: If all goverment agencies took their calls on 900 numbers that would suit me fine, and it would further illustrate just how unreachable and uncompromising most government agencies can be. Could the Congress-creatures be installed on that area code also? Please?? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gregg Squires Subject: Last Laugh! Answering Machine Message Date: 10 Oct 90 17:51:15 GMT Organization: Citibank A friend's line answers with his mother... Mom: "Hello?" Caller: (usually) Hello! Is Kevin there? Mom: one moment... (Mom puts down phone and footsteps follow...) Mom: (in background) "Kevin dear, are you awake? There's a phone call for you..." Kevin: (sounds groggy) "Umm, no, I'm not awake" Mom: (returns to phone) "I'm sorry, but Kevin isn't here now, please leave a message!" BEEP! This always works the first time. Who would disbelieve Mom? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #728 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28109; 12 Oct 90 3:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18486; 12 Oct 90 2:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23772; 12 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 0:55:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #729 BCC: Message-ID: <9010120055.ab12128@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Oct 90 00:55:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 729 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Censorship and 73 Magazine (was Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell) [John DeArmond] International Directory Assistance [John R. Covert] Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Brian Jay Gould] Telecom Acronyms [The Age, via U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] The Cost of Numbers [Tommy Ace] ISDN Translations [Paul Mooney] Conferencing of International Calls [Sanjay Manandhar] A Recorded Announcement From the Tax Authorities [Jean-Pierre Radley] SP-2188 / SP-2388 Standards [Stuart Lynne] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John G. DeArmond" Subject: Censorship and 73 Magazine (was Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell) Date: 10 Oct 90 22:29:35 GMT Reply-To: "John G. DeArmond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article <13197@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 724, Message 4 of 7 >In article <13076@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kf5iw!jim@central.uucp (Jim >Blocker) writes... >>Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. >>They make for some very interesting reading! >Odds are your library won't have them. >Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. filed suit against "73, Inc., a >foreign [not CA] Corporation, Spenser Whipple Jr.[Peter Stark] , Wayne >Green, Virginia Londner Green, and Does 1 through 200, Inclusive" >(where the Does were all employees of 73 Inc.). The Superior Court of >the State of California ruled, in judgement C 126265, that I saw this article today and it stunned me. Not only had I, as a long time subscriber of 73, ever heard of the suit, but I was also surprised that Wayne Green would take such a ruling laying down. So I picked up the phone and called 73 Magazine. Talked to a "Linda". She brought Bill Brown, who is apparently the editor in chief into the conversation. There was one problem. There has been so much turnover at 73 that no one remembered much about the case. After some research, the called me back. They said that there was indeed such a case that was limited strictly to the State of California. They said that someone remembered there being a letter sent out to CA subscribers asking them to tear the pages out of their magazines. They could not remember whether or not the case was appealed. They stated that they were sure that the case never got outside of CA. Linda started to apologize (sp) for the article and I interrupted her to explain that my interest was a First Amendment concern and not about the content. She then made a statement that stunned me. She said that they were not concerned about that aspect and in fact she'd hate think that someone could publish the plans for an atomic bomb or something without the government getting involved! Can you believe that? Prior restraint endorsed by a publisher. Oh well, the Bill of Rights was nice while it lasted .... John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:37:10 PDT From: "John R. Covert 11-Oct-1990 2031" Subject: International Directory Assistance Issue 728 mentioned the AT&T ad with: >"I'm sorry ... We don't offer directory assistance for Europe." >"I'M SORRY ... WE DON'T HAVE DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE FOR LONDON." I just called my MCI operator and asked for Directory Assistance in Europe. She told me to dial 10288-0. (As did my Sprint operator.) I said, "But that's AT&T! Why is MCI telling me to call AT&T?" Because MCI does not provide that service; AT&T does. I said, "Sounds like AT&T's the real phone company." What really worries me is that International Directory Assistance, now free, might start costing money. Why should AT&T carry the D.A. traffic to all the international countries? And why won't the other carriers do it? john [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact John, your concern about international DA eventually having a price tag on it is well grounded. For the past couple years, those of us who make extensive use of international calling via AT&T have seen things get tighter and tighter at the Pittsburgh Operating Center. They are becoming quite aware of the fact that MCI and Sprint are telling their customers to get DA from AT&T for free, then to come back and place the actual call on their carrier. That's nothing new; MCI has been notorious for skimming the cream since they began operations in the late sixties. I make many business (international) calls from home at night to countries where the time is offset by 9-15 hours from me simply because there is no 'window' available during the regular business day to conduct business with, say, India. I have to bring the file home with me at night. Circuits to India are *jammed tight* all night long. Its bad enough I have to put it on the Demon Dialer and then bang away for 45 minutes to break through ... without having to spend 15-30 minutes on the line to reach directory in New Delhi. I used to get DA from the office in the daytime, simply because at (relative to their time) 2 AM everyone is asleep in India: low traffic, fast connect to DA, on and off in a couple minutes typically, five minutes at most. Now Pittsburgh won't do it any longer ... get the DA when you are ready to have *us* place the call, they tell me. Why is this? Ask the MCI cream-skimmers and abusers why! They know the scoop. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Date: 12 Oct 90 02:04:06 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. I can now get ANI (NJBell calls it CLASS service) at my home. I'd really like to get an ANI box with lots of features. An LCD display, printer, RS232, large memory, and a partridge in a pear tree. Anyone know of a good source? Brian Jay Gould ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Telecom Acronyms Date: 12 Oct 90 13:14:34 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne From {The Age}, 12th October, 1990, Melbourne, Australia. By Leon Gettler, Communications reporter. Is it all over between PETA and LES since she found out about the LEOPARD? Was SID linked to the MAFIA? And where did DRACULA fit into all this? Was he really a VAMPIRE or just one of the DAGS? Confused? Just consult the Telecom staff dictionary, an introduction the to world of tele-babble. Insiders in every profession have their jargon, but no one generates it faster than telecommunications engineers. Take, for instance the story of the chap sent to Cairns on an emergency mission several years ago when the phone system was wiped out by flood. He designed the Cairns restoration and provisioning program. No prizes for working out the acronym. "It just rolled off the tongue," said a Telecom official this week. Step into the world of telecommunications and you find yourself in a sea of acronyms and jargon. Some examples: DNA (does not answer), DND (did not dial), MBC (major business customer), HC&F (heat, coil and fuse), LIBFA (line bearer fault analysis), DELY (delivery), CIE (customer interface equipment), PP (prompt public telephone) and TTT (terminatng trunk tandem). Traditionally, acronyms have been used to help us remember terminology. Usage has transformed many into ordinary words. Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services is always Qantas. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps gave us Anzac, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is NATO. But Telecom Australia seems to have done the reverse. It produced DRACULA (data recording and concentrator unit for line applications), VAMPIRE (videotex access monitoring and priority incident reporting equipment), LEOPARD (local engineering operations processing and analyses of recorded data), MAFIA (maintenance and fleet information analysis), SULTAN (subscribers' universal line testing access network), CARGO (complaints analysis recording and graphing organisation), CATNAP (computer-aided network assessment program) and DAGS (digit-absorbing group selector). In many ways, Telecom employees are lucky. They can see PARIS (product accounting and reporting information system) or even MARS (microfiche auto-retrieval system). They don't even need a MAP (manual assistance position), the work station for telephonists. Telephone operators-turned-philosophers can turn to PLATO (programmed evaluation review technique) over a few POTS (plain old telephone services) of CIDER (costing input, data editing and reporting) or SODA (service order debit advice). and romantics can contemplate EROS (emitter-receiver for optical systems). But things can get confusing, too. COLDEWS (computerised lines depot external works scheduling) does not cover grass in the morning. And TACONET is short for Telecom Australia computer network, not tapas tucker. Similarly, CONTRAFAST is not a Nicaraguan health regime but the consolidated trunk forecast. Are Telecom employees happy with the ALP (associated line prime) after the [Australian] Labor Party's national conference last month? And does COM (computer output to microfilm) suggest that the reds have escaped from under the beds and infiltrated the phone exchanges? The names are also a worry. There are nine males (REX, JACK, SID, DAVID, LARS, LES, LEN, MARC AND SAM) but only four females (PETA, DAISY, DOT AND SUSIE). Koorie and other non-English names do not get a mention. And what about the indelicacy of TART (TACONET availability and response time monitoring) and TIT (technician in training)? ---------------------- Don't blame me if my fingers did not type what my eyes saw! Danny [Moderator's Note: Thanks for taking the time to type in such a clever report. Speaking of obscure acronyms, everyone must know of CARE, the organization which provides assistance to other countries in need. But do you remember what the letters mean? Committee on American Relief in Europe. And lest we forget, the zip in the postal Zip Code refers to the Zone Improvement Plan. Seriously. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:11:26 PDT From: Tommy AcE Subject: The Cost of Numbers A friend in Colorado who just changed his phone number reported to me the following curious policy in effect there (presumably, this also applies when new service is established): The telco (U S West) gives you a list of three dull phone numbers you may choose from. If you don't like any of the three, you can pay $50 for the privilege of choosing from a telco-selected list of five numbers which are more interesting-sounding; these might end in something catchy, like 2211, 0909, or whatever. In addition to the $50 one-time charge, you pay $3 every month. If you don't like the idea of choosing from a list of three or five numbers, you can request the number of your choice for a mere $200, and $10 per month thereafter. This clinched it for me; I'm definitely not moving back to Colorado now. And I thought the $1.50 a month I pay for my number here in PacBell-land was ridiculous. It used to be (at least in my limited observations) that many telcos would allow subscribed-selected numbers for free when practical. The thought of not charging for something must have become too abhorrent, and fees for the privilege were created. Evidently, it then became abhorrent to U S West that the fees were nominal when they could be exorbitant, and now you have the current situation. Tom Ace {pyramid,sun}!hoptoad!lever!ace ------------------------------ From: Paul Mooney Subject: ISDN Translations Date: 10 Oct 90 16:52:35 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA While looking into some ISDN "stuff" I ran into the following acronyms for which I would like "translations." Any help would be appreciated. 1. SMDS a. DQDB b. MSS c. IMSSI (Obviously the documentation was not complete. However, a xxxx router can have up to 6 SMDS links. A DQDB is another box at a remote site which can be daisy chained or stand-alone). Thanks, Paul Mooney Network Services Hewlett Packard ------------------------------ From: Sanjay Manandhar Subject: Conferencing of International Calls Date: 11 Oct 90 13:59:30 GMT Reply-To: Sanjay Manandhar Organization: MIT Media Laboratory If I subscribe to call conferencing on my LD lines, is it possible to call country A and then add country B in a conference call? Is conferencing only within the same LATA or is it applicable to LD and international? Who provides it? Thanks, Sanjay Manandhar sanjay@media-lab.media.mit.edu MIT Media Laboratory (617) 253-0312 20 Ames Street, E15-355 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA [Moderator's Note: There is some confusion in your use of terms, I think. 'Call Conferencing' a/k/a Three Way Calling is offered by your local telco. It can be used on any calls anywhere, local or long distance. There are no restrictions by LATA, etc. You dial up one call, connect, flash, dial the second call and flash again. All three parties are connected. There is a service from AT&T called 'Alliance Teleconferencing' which allows conferencing of more than two places at one time, but again, you can conference to wherever you can otherwise call, local or long distance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jean-Pierre Radley Subject: A Recorded Announcement From the Tax Anuthorities Reply-To: jpr@jpradley.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) Organization: High-Q Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 00:11:39 GMT This afternoon, my secretary said, "Quick, pick up my line!" and I said, "Just transfer it to my number", but she repeated her phrase, more loudly. A canned announcement from the tax authorities in Albany was prattling about our company's allegedly not having remitted withheld taxes for some week in August. Strange use of technology. The recording had already started to play, to my secretary, before I cut in. And if we were a larger company with a switchboard, the message would have been played to an audience that could not, and maybe should not, be hearing it. Who thought this one up? Jean-Pierre Radley HIGH-Q jpr@jpradley CIS: 72160,1341 ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) Subject: SP-2188 / SP-2388 Standards Date: 11 Oct 90 02:54:26 GMT Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada I just received some news from Joe Decuir, chairman of TR29.2 on availability of the Class 1 and Class 2 proposed fax standards. >1. EIA-578, Class 1 >SP-2188 has been approved by EDEC for publication as EIA-578. ANSI approval >is expected by 10/19/90. EIA publications expects to have it for sale by >11/1/90, for $15. >2. SP-2388, Class 2 >SP-2388 can be bought, from EIA Standard Sales Dept, as "BSR/EIA-SP2388" for >$28. For further information contact the EIA at: 2001 Eye Stree, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202-457-4900 Class 1 suggests a very simple interface where almost all of the work to implement the fax emulation (the infamous T.30 state machine) is done in the host. Basically commands to send/receive HDLC data, and send/receive fax data are defined. You get to do the rest. Class 2 provides a more complicated interace where the fax emulation is done in the modem, but controlled by the host. Approximatetly 40 commands are defined to control the modems behaviour, transfer data, and control the emulation of the fax protocols. You have to know enough of the T.30 state machine to control it, but you don't have to actually implement it at the host level. [While this sounds hard, it's simple enough that procomm can send or receive a fax using this protocol with a script and one additional program to send/receive the fax images. The extra program is apparantly only required due to procomm being unable to pass null bytes.] Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #729 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01228; 12 Oct 90 6:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22948; 12 Oct 90 4:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13345; 12 Oct 90 3:07 CDT Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 2:12:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #730 BCC: Message-ID: <9010120212.ab16556@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Oct 90 02:12:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 730 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Automated Computer Calls [Harvey Newstrom] Strange Answering Machine Messages [David Lemson] Telephones at the Baseball Stadium [Carl Moore] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Julian Macassey] Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased [Sanjay Hiranandani] Re: Speakerphones and the Courts [Lars Poulsen] Re: ESF Framing Bits [Kay Fleskes] Re: Phone/Net Links to USSR [David Brightbill] Re: San Fransisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [David Brightbill] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hnewstrom@x102c.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) Subject: Automated Computer Calls Date: 11 Oct 90 13:49:37 GMT Reply-To: hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com (Harvey Newstrom) Organization: Harris_Electronic_Systems Telecommunications Network_Engineering Every couple of weeks I get a telephone call with a recorded message from Patrick Air Force Base "...reminding you of your impending appointment tomorrow. If you are unable to make your appointment..." The problem is, I am not associated with Patrick AFB in any way. It gives me an electronic menu to get an operator, but usually no one answers. It also gives a number to call to manually make an appointment, but when I call that number, I get a recording telling me to call the automated number. I finally got an operator when I went through the menu. She had no idea how to fix the problem, but told me where the recording was coming from so I could call that office directly. When I called that office, they had no idea how to fix it, but gave me the number of the operator who does that. It was the the first operator who had no idea how to fix it. I told both parties to find someone and fix it, because it is not my problem. I am waiting to see if the problem goes away. Harvey Newstrom hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com uunet!x102c!hnewstrom (407)727-5176 FAX:(407)727-5118 P.O.Box 37; M/S 15/8873; Melbourne, FL 32902 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 15:28:35 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Strange Answering Machine Messages People have been talking recently about strange answering machine messages appearing mysteriously. This reminds me of something that has happened a lot on my parents' answering machine (a Phone-Mate two-line model). It hasn't happened in the past few months, I don't really know why. My dad's office has a voice mail system, and when you ring my father's phone and he doesn't get it within three rings, it switches over to the voice mail message. Also, we have SpeedDial from the phone company (SWBT). (I think we have a 5ESS switch, if that makes any difference) On Speed Dial number 2, we have my dad's work number programmed. Well, the strange occurence is that sometimes we'd find a message on the answering machine consisting of a ring or so and my dad's voice mail message. Then, the standard "If you'd like to leave a message, press one ..." message and the answering machine timed out on the silence from the other end. Pretty weird, huh? It seems like the answering machine picked up the phone and dialed "2", even by pulse. But why would it do this, and why would it only happen every so often. I know some reader of the Digest has to have heard of something like this! (HA!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:19:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Telephones at the Baseball Stadium If you have watched major-league baseball on TV in the U.S., you have seen (from time to time) a manager or coach getting on the telephone to his team's bullpen (the place where substitute pitchers make their warmup pitches). Does anyone know what system is involved (i.e. number of digits dialed, etc.)? I take it that it also connects to the clubhouse area (locker rooms, etc.), given the second incident related below; or could that be a separate phone? In the 1960s, I recall reading about Moe Drabowsky, a relief pitcher (was with the Baltimore Orioles in 1966) playing a prank by calling the opponents' bullpen. This year(?), I HEARD about the late manager Billy Martin (I believe he died late in 1988) getting ejected from a game, and then staying in touch on the clubhouse phone. An umpire (who noticed someone frequently using the phone) eventually sneaked up on the dugout, then burst in shouting "WHO YA TALKIN' TO ON THAT PHONE?". (I used some slang; for non-English speakers, it's "Who[-m] are you talking to on that [tele-]phone?".) The telephone user said "Nobody, sir!" or similar, and the umpire went ahead and ripped the phone off the wall. (A player, coach, or manager who is ejected is, in effect, suspended for the rest of the game, and is thus not permitted to communicate with his team.) [Moderator's Note: In the case of our Chicago teams, all the administrative phones within the ball park run through the PBX in the offices. Both the White Sox (Comiskey Park, 312-WAGner 4-1000) and the Chicago Cubs (Wrigley Field, 312-BUckingham 1-5050) have PBX systems with three digit extensions which dial 9 for outside lines or 8 for WATS lines, including the dugout phones, locker rooms, etc. By the way, it is pronounced /wag/-ner, like a dog wags its tail, not /vawg/-ner, as in Tannhauser. Both parks have had those phone numbers or permutations of them for over seventy years, although the PBX equipment is newer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 11 Oct 90 15:11:22 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <13221@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: Mucho stuff about dealing with toner conmen deleted - but worth a read. > One guy actually stayed on the phone a whole minute and a half. I > joked with him that I was getting two or three calls a week like this, > and "they always hang up on me." I got him to promise not to hang up, > got a first and last name, a company name, but then he had trouble > telling me where he was calling from. "California", he said. "Where > in California?", said I. "Uh ... L.A.". I tried to get him to give > me an address, and he choked. I asked again for "the actual physical > address where you are now". So now you know what all the out of work actors do in LA. When they are not working on their hair, they work in boiler rooms. I am ashamed to say that the capital of telephone con men is LA. The "office supplies", charities, long distance service and such stuff are worked mostly from Los Angeles. The securities cons are worked mostly from Newport Beach in nearby Orange County. So if it's diamonds and oil wells, it should be Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa. If it's ball point pens and Toner, it should be West LA, Mid Wilshire. There are exceptions. I know of one Oil and Coins boiler room in Century City (Adjacent to Beverly Hills), but the owner lives in Costa Mesa. They like to use actors for several reasons. They are usually desperate for a temporary job so they can whizz away for auditions. They can assume personnas - I knew one that played a devout Jew for the Jewish community and it worked well for him. In the want ads in this town there are constant ads for "telemarketing" jobs. Some claim in the ads that the locations have windows. The average boiler room is a cheap location filled with folding tables and single line phones fed with POTS business lines. Some have Centrex. The better places put Confidencer noise cancelling transmitters on the handsets. Some boiler rooms only handle one or two scams, often the scam of the owner, some are renta-voice places and play the scam that someone is hiring them for. There are many exceptions to the above rules, I have been in some very well furnished boiler rooms. The better places are doing something more lucrative than copier supplies. The top of the line places make millions on oil. diamonds, coins, precious metals, whisky futures etc. All of these places change their names and sometimes their locations with great regularity. How long have these slimeballs been operating? Well, some of them used to sell carbon paper over the phone. Having seen boiler rooms from the other side, I would say a good rule of thumb is: Never buy anything over the phone. Never agree to anything on the phone. The cute girl who tells you she is working her way through college could be a 40 year old mother of three still waiting for a good movie part. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: Sanjay Hiranandani Subject: Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased Date: 11 Oct 90 17:06:57 GMT Reply-To: Sanjay Hiranandani Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center In article <13237@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 727, Message 8 of 11 >With my MCI Mail bill today was an insert saying that they are going >to have a rate change November 1. The rate for an MCI Mailbox will >now be THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR! It was free when I signed up, then >$15 a year. They are also raising Telex rates. I was quite upset about that too. It's highly unlikely that I will renew my subscription next year. ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Speakerphones and the Courts Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:38:46 GMT In v10 #715, Jeff Carroll writes: >>Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a >>speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use.... In article <13219@accuvax.nwu.edu> jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: >The phone on my desk ... has a speaker, but no external microphone. >When I use the speaker, anyone in my office can hear the conversation. >Because I still speak into the handset, the person on the other end will >not hear the telltale speakerphone cut-in/cut-out. Radio Shack has a free-standing telephone amplifier that can do this. (It has a MUTE button). We like it for that reason. I used it for a while at the office (at my previous job) but gave up because it did not co-exist well with our 1A2 key system. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Kay Fleskes Subject: Re: ESF Framing Bits Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 12:36:31 PDT In article <13087@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >>the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of >>network managment data. Specifically, 4Kbps worth of data. and chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >That "facilities data link" seems to be a frequently underutilized >feature. Part of the problem is that different carriers and >organizations (and vendors) have defined different standards for what >should appear in this channel. Another problem is that the carriers >standards usually define a way for them to monitor performance of the >user equipment, but don't provide users' the ability to monitor the >performance of their network. That is, the carriers are happy to take >information, but not give it, and thus many folks are unhappy about >that missing capability as well. "Intelligent Diagnostic CSUs" are commonly used to make this information available to the customer. Different vendors support the customer to different levels, but all venders are required to support the minimum set of functionality identified in the T1.403 and 54016 Specs if they want to have the blessings of these people. Additionally, the vendors may implement a superset of functionality, usually to make themselves more attractive to their customers. In our own case, we give the customer the ability to generate the same requests that are being issued towards our equipment (which doesn't do much good unless it is used in a point-to-point application, or in a private network), AND, the ability to monitor the data that the carrier can request from us. Therefore, the customer has the ability to monitor the service that is being provided to them by their carrier. >The big thing ESF gets you which is used universally is a six-bit CRC >to provide a check on each 24-frame superframe. The CRC error count is a much more accurate indicator than BPVs, because it can detect logical errors in the data stream. Both the 54016 and T1.403 specs require a measure of the level of these errors. 54016 requires a running count to be kept for retrieval by a data link message, and T1.403 requires that within the Performance Response message that is sent on the data link once per second, there is an indicator of the error count for the previous four seconds. Kay Fleskes Design Engineer ADC Kentrox (...kentrox!kay) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 14:41:56 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Phone/Net Links to USSR I've learned a little more about email connections to Krasnodar. Bob Brodel who is one of the directors of our sister city program sent me a copy of a longish article he sent to the Bitnet list. The following is extracted from that letter with his permission. There is a man (in Krasnodar) who is president of a club called "Parents of Diabetic Children." His name is Eugene Makarets. His postal address is: 35000 CCCP G. Krasnodar UL. Shaumyana, D.55, KV.66 Makarets, Eugene USSR Eugene does not speak English. The most direct electronic way to contact him is via FAX. The Krasnodar English Club Business Center has a FAX with international access. Their FAX number is (8612) 558747. Mark the fax ATTN: Marina Martinova and ask her to forward it to Eugene. She will translate it and see that he gets it. We have one person in Krasnodar who is accessable on Internet via the San Francisco - Moscow Spacebridge. Mail addressed to: "cdp!krasneft@labrea.stanford.edu" should arrive in his mailbox. The guy in Krasnodar is Alexander Samarin. Because of the nature of his account, it is real expensive for him to email back. He deals in Roubles and the gateway charges are in "hard currency" He should be able to get mail to Eugene Makarets. Put ATTN: Makarets, Eugene in the subject line. Include a FAX number for Eugene to respond back to. Bob also says that there are two TELEX units in Krasnodar with international access. They are at the Eye Micro Surgery Institute (Dr. Yakovchuk, Director) telex 123220 (CERTA SU) and the Rice Research Institute (Professor Alyoshin, Director) telex 279117 (AQVA SU). The country code is 871. Bob and I are working on getting a UUCP connection between a university in Krasnodar and the Moscow node. Does anyone have the email address of the guy at the node in Moscow? If you have any trouble connecting with Krasnodar, let Bob know. His email address is broedel@fsu.bitnet. I'd also be happy to help. Just to give you more background, Krasnodar is the sister city to my town of Tallahassee. We have sent a modem to a Soviet hacker in Krasnodar and are in regular contact with folks there. MD's from Krasnodar have traveled to Tallahassee for training and visa versa. A UUCP link to there is something I have been promoting for a while. I know that there is a node in Moscow via Finland. I'm going to explore ways of making the Krasnodar link. The main deal will be finding bucks for the phone charges. David Brightbill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 11:22:43 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities One technology which has been experimented with to solve the pay phone false alarm problem is a fire alarm kiosk which a user has to enter and close the door. The door latches and stays locked until a fire or police person responds to the call and let's the citizen out. There are a ton of obvious disadvantages having to do with civil liberty, etc. One benefit is for folks being attacked by muggers. They can pop into a kiosk and hang out till help comes. If memory serves, the kiosks were tried in a large NE city about four or five years ago. Davie Brightbill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #730 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18352; 13 Oct 90 13:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31100; 13 Oct 90 11:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23155; 13 Oct 90 10:23 CDT Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:08:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #731 BCC: Message-ID: <9010131008.ab24605@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:08:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 731 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More COCOTery [Lang Zerner] Re: More COCOTery [Rich Sims] Re: More COCOTery [Will Martin] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [John R. Levine] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Tad Cook] Re: Improved COCOT Sticker [B. S. Oplinger] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Christopher Gillett] COCOT Labels and COCOTS (and Bell Phones) in NYC [amb@ai.mit.edu] COCOTs and the CA PUC [Gordon C. Zaft] COCOT Tariffs in DC/MD/VA [Bob Stratton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 13:05:41 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article <13233@accuvax.nwu.edu> yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yasi) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 727, Message 4 of 11 >[PacBell] DID know the PUC complaint number right away, though, and I >consider that big progress. That number in California is 800/648-6967. The PUC told me that they had delegated the COCOT complaint function to PacBell. The number they gave me (which is on the improved labels) is 800/231-1863. I confirmed that number before putting it on the label by calling and asking the PacBell rep, "Is this the correct number to call to register complaints about customer-owned pay phones in violation of PUC regulations?" She said it was, and that you needed to provide either the phone number or correct street address of the offending device in order to register the complaint. Regarding the 10xxx question, is there anyone who has a copy of the actual regs so we can find out what really needs to go onto the label? Be seeing you... Lang ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:59:57 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: More COCOTery In-Reply-To: message from mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu > Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to > turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an > correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to > an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more > successful. Thus, the abusive telephone would see a drop in traffic > and revenue, which should cause the owner to reform their errant ways. As you say, "economic THEORY"!! That assumes the general public is even aware that there's a difference in the two side-by-side phones. I don't believe that is the case. I suspect the majority of the people who use the phone system think in terms of "_THE_ phone company", and equate that phrase to some string containing the word "Bell". Casual conversations with a number of folks indicate (to me) that aside from the readers of this group, a "very knowledgeable" individual is one who knows that there is more than one L/D carrier available. I also think that if the "general public" were aware of what is really happening, the problem would not be COCOTs and their operators, but more likely, a rash of lynchings and organized vandalism! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 10:59:04 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: More COCOTery Telecom readers might be interested in the following, related to the recent COCOT discussion: Since Telecom participants kindly provided the 800 numbers to call to request the various flavors of AT&T catalogs, I did so, getting the consumer-goods catalog at home, the big-business datacomm catalog here at work, and the small-business "Sourcebook" using my wife's former business name. In the latter, on pages 106-7, AT&T sells COCOTs. They definitely appeal to greed; the main illustration is a fiendishly-grinning man pulling a box overflowing with quarters out of his own (presumably :-) "AT&T Private Pay Phone Plus". For those that care, this phone costs $995 (plus backboard or enclosure, at various prices and styles). The latest rates downloaded into the phone costs $110 yearly for monthly updates, or $60 bi-monthly. (There's no mention of how the initial rates get loaded if you don't buy this service.) One interesting footnote indicates that there must be COCOT-free areas in the country -- I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the Digest. "Legal restrictions prevent the sale of Private Pay Telephones to customers in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma." So does that mean that there are no COCOTs in those states? Or does it actually indicate that only the telcos within those states can sell COCOTs, or something else? Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge MA Date: 10 Oct 90 10:50:58 EDT (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <13206@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >In attempting to use my MCI card by dialing 950-1022 from a certain COCOT >I got a COCOT recording telling me to deposit 25 cents for the first >three minutes. Around here, I've walked up to more than one COCOT, dialed 950-1022, and been advised to "deposit nine dollars, and ninety five cents, for the first one minute." Perish forbid their AOS should lose even one overpriced call. Does anyone know offhand whether the Mass. DPU has any COCOT rules? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 10:56:01 PDT Date: 12 Oct 90 17:55:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Yes, 950 calls are supposed to be free of charge to > the caller. They are sort of like 800 numbers; the charge for the > call is paid by the OCC you are using to route your call. I was told by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission that COCOTs could legally charge for 800 calls. I asked about this because of the 800 access to US Sprint with a FON-Card. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Ask them for a written copy. To charge the caller for an 800 number makes two people pay for the call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 11:18:40 EDT From: "B. S. Oplinger" Subject: Re: Improved COCOT Sticker Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center I looked in the telecom-archives directory for the file cocot.complaint.sticker and could not find it. Am I doing something wrong? brian oplinger@crd.ge.com [Moderator's Note: It was a little delayed in getting placed in the archives, but it is there now. Sorry. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 10:52:53 PDT From: Christopher Gillett Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File In article <13145@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tad Cook writes: >Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe >"Telephone Man! Just checking the line!". >[Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of >the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just >say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and >vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. 911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. In many areas, dialing 911 (or the equivalent) when there is not actually an emergency is illegal. And while the chance that an unnecessary call will foul something up, or slow something down are admittedly remote, why take the chance? Also, many dispatch outfits will roll at least a police car if they suspect "something fishy" (like maybe somebody trying to attract the attention of the police without giving away that they are actually calling them. Yup, that sounds like something out of James Bond, but it's happened before and probably will again). Why risk a patrol officers life by making him or her drive to a pay phone (at a higher than usual rate of speed), just because you decided to play "wrong number" games with the dispatcher. I consider erroneous calls to 911 nearly as bad as pulling an alarm box just for fun. It's unnecessary, wasteful of resources, dangerous for the ES people, and potentially very costly. I understand the frustration with COCOTs, and I've had unpleasant encounters with several in my travels. But, as much as they are a hassle, my feeling is that they should never, ever be disabled, or made to appear as though they are not in service simply because they don't meet regulatory specs, or because they charge lots 'o dollars to use them. If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a quarter, or even a dollar, so long as I can get somebody to help by reaching 911, or an operator, or even somebody else who can call for help for me. Let's look at this from a different angle. Suppose, for a moment, that one of you overzealous, frustrated, wanna-be-regulators slaps a sticker over a working COCOT because it won't let you dial until you stick in a quarter. Some unfortunate soul runs up to it to call 911 to report the massive coronary he just witnessed taking place. This fellow sees the out of order sign, and since he doesn't have time to read all the fine print, goes off in search of another phone. And let's just suppose that this fine out of order sign means that it takes an extra two minutes to get the EMTs rolling. If the stricken individual died, and a relative found out that a delayed response contributed substantially to his demise, *and* found out that the delay was caused by one of these phony Out of Order stickers, then the relative would be right to track the lot of you down and sue all of you,as well as the COCOT operator, and anybody else involved. (I can see a sharp rattlesnake bringing suit against anybody acknowledging participation in this "stickering" by alleging some sort of "conspiracy". It probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it could well make your life miserable, cost you a bunch for your own rattlesnake, and net the plaintiff's attorney a ton of free publicity), Yes, COCOTs are a pain. Yes, many do not meet regulatory specification. Yes, something should be done about it. If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone totally inoperative. The sticker should ask the reader to not use this telephone and give reasons why. That way, when Joe Passerby wants to call home to say he'll be late for dinner, he might think twice before using the phone. But when urgent help is needed, there's at least a chance that somebody will make the damned thing work enough to get assistance. Just my $0.02 (well, ok $0.50). Usually lurking, Christopher Gillett gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Hudson, Taxachusetts (508) 568-7172 Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me! ------------------------------ From: amb@ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 03:35:59 EDT Subject: COCOT Labels and COCOTS (and Bell phones) in NYC A point to consider: C&P Tel and New York Tel (Bell SOP?) put nasty yellow stickers over the coin slot of non-working phones, although most can still call 911; they at least would seem to deem the 911 thing a non-problem. And here's something else for you COCOT/911 obsessionists: A COCOT that I've always had a particularly hostile relationship with (closest public phone to my house by about 0.5 miles) apparently offered absolutely no way of reaching a real carrier. Until one day I needed to call 911 from it, which connected me to a New York Telephone operator. Go figure. [And a digression on the state of public telephones in New York.] The usual cause of out-of-order Bell phones, at least around here, is that the digestive tract of the phones, for some scam or another, is non-functional. The new model that NY Tel uses can be enabled to lock up the coin slot when the coin return knob is turned; I believe that they can and will do this *remotely* if someone reports problems, as I've seen many a phone with the metal bar blocking the coin path which sprouted a yellow sticker a few days later. (On a few occasions I've turned the coin return knob, which brings out the metal shield, and heard a metallic *chonk* fro