Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12108; 22 Oct 90 0:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02687; 21 Oct 90 22:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30703; 21 Oct 90 21:33 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:28:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #751 BCC: Message-ID: <9010212128.ab12095@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:28:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 751 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Floyd Davidson] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Brian Crawford] Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Jamie Hanrahan] Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Brian Kantor] Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number [David Tamkin] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? [John Higdon] Re: Telco "Customer Service" [John Higdon] Re: Need Help With French Dialing Conventions [John R. Covert] Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold [Bill Vermillion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 06:50:40 GMT PT>>rights. Bell did in fact file suit Wednesday to the tune of one PT>>million dollars against the contractor. PAT] FD>...trying to negotiate a payment for their damages, and they are FD>obviously trying to collect more than the cost of the damage he did. FD>What he damaged was apparently one each fiber optic device. He FD>probably owes them the cost to repair it. Several hundreds, or a few FD>thousands, of dollars. FD>What I object to is going after the cost of lost service. That was FD>caused by proven bad management and bad planning. The study done FD>following the Hinsdale fire disaster is all the documentation needed FD>to prove it. NOBODY builds non-redundant systems and puts critical FD>traffic on them. (At least nobody with good management and good FD>planning does.) PT>[Moderator's Note: They apparently did ask him to pay, and reasonably PT>assuming he would not do so voluntarily, they filed suit. Do you mean you know that they did, or you know that they did not negotiate damages? In the given amount of time they couldn't have done any 'good faith' negotiations. PT>amount of the damages it goes a lot further than 'one each fiber optic PT>device' as you stated. How much is the salary for a dozen men being PT>paid union wages working several hours overtime? This is precisely what the contractor is responsible for. Plus all other costs associated with repair of the damaged cable. It won't be inexpensive. PT>How much did it cost ... several examples of expenses as a result of outage deleted ... PT>have approached a million dollars by the time all was back to normal PT>in 708-land. PAT] Virtually everything listed above is the cost of lost service. The loss of service resulted from a non-redundant system with no alternate restoral route available. That is bad planning by definition, which comes from bad management. The study done after the fire disaster and the plan that arose from it are documentation that the potential for a disaster was planned into the system. For anyone not aware of what "redundant" and "restoral route" mean, in this context, the normal design for radio and fiber optic systems is that there are actually two radios or two cables. Only one is normally used. Sometimes the secondary carries special traffic, like live video feeds, but normally it is totally idle or carries identical traffic. When there are several routes between two locations there may only be one spare, in which case a failure on any one of them would be alt-routed on the spare. In this particular case it appears that either a separate route entirely or a second fiber optic laid just a few feet apart from the one that was cut would have prevented most of the service loss. My guess is the lawyers decided it was good PR to file for such a large amount. I'm betting they don't get close to a million bucks when it is settled. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu 8347 Richardson Hwy. floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 [and related to Alascom, Inc. by a pay check, only] ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Date: 21 Oct 90 14:48:02 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <13826@accuvax.nwu.edu>, floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > What he damaged was apparently one each fiber optic device. He > probably owes them the cost to repair it. Several hundreds, or a few > thousands, of dollars. A year ago, the City of Tempe's Water Dept. happened to dig up Sprint's/MCI's (can't remember which) main fibre optic line which runs along the Southern Pacific railway right-of-way through the southern states. Unfortunately for the Water Dept, it happens to run right through town here. I seem to remember their final tab running in the neighborhood of $300K-$400K. Don't know if this line would compare to the one in Illinois, though. Brian Crawford crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Date: 21 Oct 90 09:36:59 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <13818@accuvax.nwu.edu>, oplinger@sol.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) writes: > cmoore@brl.mil describes the process for a NY Times/CBS News poll: > Is there some magic way to tell if a number is > residential or commercial, especially the unlisted ones. Or is this > simply a case of a newspaper article mixing facts and fiction? I think the latter. I was at a friend's house when they received a survey call. There was some confusion because this house has two lines, one private and one business. When the survey folks learned that they had called the business line, they didn't want to talk further. In this case, they were just calling every randomly-generated number and asking. Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Date: 21 Oct 90 18:00:37 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. >[Moderator's Note: I think they made the assumption (mostly correct) >that business phones would probably not be non-pub; thus in the >process of sorting out who to call and who not to call, all non-pubs >were assumed to be residential for the purpose of filing the number in >one compartment or another. PAT] Hearty Guffaw! Here at UCSD we have about 200 dial-in modem lines, of which some 75 or so are in the same prefix (558) as those assigned to the student housing, and another 20+ in the 452 prefix, which is split between homes in the surrounding community, and various small centrexen serving nearby firms. Our modem numbers are NOT en-bloc, since we add lines typically 8 or 16 at a time as demand grows, and it often seems that we often get all the numbers ending in odd digits. We only publish the pilot numbers for the six hunt groups these lines all belong to (each is a different grade of modem service). All the rest are non-pub, as are most business centrex numbers, so such a survey (or solicitation attack) would wind up targeting a whole lot of business and modem lines among the residences. I don't think they would be able to tell which is which ahead of time; it's a real mixed bag. This is beside the 534 prefix, which we completely own, and 543 and 294 each of which is about half ours. In a year or so, if campus telecommunications removes all PacBell service from the dorms and replaces student phones with campus lines, as they've been discussing, we'll probably own half of another prefix as well - about half our students live in campus housing. I suspect the newspaper's screening process involves a lot of apologizing to inappropriate dialees. That and hanging up on machines. (Actually, it's pretty easy to tell which are our dial-in modem lines. They're the ones that are busy all evening long!) Brian [Moderator's Note: You refer to those numbers as non-published, but I think you mean 'non-listed' or 'not listed in the directory'. The difference between these two conditions is the one is unavailable, period, and the other, while not listed in the directory will still usually show up in a cross-reference directory, typically with just the company name and no address given, or a reference to the lead number in the group. I think people preparing the list of 'random' numbers for these polls do first select randomly, then use criss-cross directories to backtrack them into residence, business or payphone categories. So if they pick (for example) random number 708-491-1234 in Evanston, IL, looking at the criss-cross will show only a relative handful of entries under 708-491. No where near the 9000+ numbers the exchange might have are listed. But the several dozen that are listed all say 'Northwestern University such and such' ... so the random number compiler assumes the whole exchange is probably Northwestern. Likewise if the criss-cross directory lists a number with a business name and then skips the next two dozen numbers before it starts listing again, its reasonable to say the numbers following are linked to the first one. For exchanges that go on page after page in the criss-cross listing one residence after another, a skipped entry is probably a residence with a non-pub number. But it is not that often that a business will have its main incoming number non-pub. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 13:37:26 CDT Pat Townson replied to Andy Jacobson in volume 10, issue 723: | [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. PAT] Not "throughout" by any means. It certainly doesn't work from here in Centel's part of 312, and I tried all ten possible 1-57X-[last four] possibilities. Pat, did it work from your cellular service? 290 stopped working here for reading back your own number when it was assigned as a prefix in Elk Grove Village. Now that the 290 in Elk Grove Village is in another area code, dialing 290-XXXX within 312 from my Centel service gives fast busy for most XXXX but four quick beeps and then silence on 312 290 1111. 1-290-anything gets an intercept. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com [Moderator's Note: No, it won't work on cellular, because Ameritech uses DID trunks, does it not? I've tried it. It appears to work, but never gets around to ringing me back. It no doubt rings back on 312-228-xxxx (whatever outgoing trunk I seized when I placed the call). I've noticed the ANI reported when I use the cell phone to call the 800 number was a number totally different than mine. The number reported by ANI, when dialed back, is listed to IBT Co. in Hickory Hills, IL and is not for incoming service. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? Date: 21 Oct 90 00:39:43 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com writes: > There is a charge for the creation of messages if you do it on line. > There is a very good user software package called AT&T Mail Access, on > which you can create messages, and with a single Function Key press > upload your messages and receive messages addressed to you. AT&T Mail also offers (unlike, I believe, MCI Mail) a UUCP connection for AT&T Mail services. This means there is no on line charges whatsoever. No special software is required. No user interaction with AT&T Mail is required. One account shows detailed user message accounting (all system users are identified). If there are other systems involved with a customer, the one account can handle them as well. There are fifteen people who have access to my single AT&T Mail account and sorting the charges out is no problem whatsoever. This means that the one $30/yr fee is really $2/yr. Combine that with a lack of any on line charges and it turns out to be pretty reasonable. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" Date: 21 Oct 90 00:57:58 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Steve Forrette writes: > Anonymous cellular telephone salesman: "This model is nice because it > has true TouchTone. On the older cellular models, even though it's > pushbutton, you have to wait for the number to pulse out when placing > a call." From the Pac*Bell repair "Gotcha" department: Among my many residence lines is one from the #5 crossbar switch -- the rest are on a 1ESS. I am not paying for TT on the Xbar line -- they can't (or don't seem to be able to) turn it off. Anyway, I have noticed for some time that it takes MUCH longer for calls to complete, particularly long distance calls, on the Xbar than on the 1ESS. Why? I don't know -- they both use archaic MF signaling. Being the pill that I am, called repair service and explained that calls seemed to take much too long to complete on the Xbar line. A technician called back and I explained that calls on my ESS lines completed MUCH faster than those on the number I was reporting. He had to take it under advisement. The next day the man called back with the explanation. He did some checking and found that my ESS lines had TT and the reported line didn't. He carefully explained that TT was much faster than rotary. If I were to get TT service on the Xbar line, the problem would be solved. Makes sense to me! The man should be taken to lunch by the sales department. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 07:42:08 PDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Oct-1990 1037" Subject: Re: Need Help With French Dialing Conventions >As I understand it, all French numbers are now 8 digits, there are no city >codes, and dialing within France always involves 8 digits. But I believe >that there's some strangeness with respect to dialing the Paris area (Ile >de France?) from the rest of the country. ... The easiest way to look at it is to consider Ile de France as having an area code of "1" and the rest of the country as having an area code of "null." To call between areas, you dial "16" (dial-tone) "area code" "8-digits", where "area code" is "1" when calling the Ile from the Provinces, and "null" when calling from the Provinces to the Ile. Likewise, when calling from outside France, you dial "International Access Code" "33" "area code" "8-digits", where, as above, "area code" may be either "1" or "null". john ------------------------------ From: Bill Vermillion Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold Date: 21 Oct 90 17:34:08 GMT Reply-To: Bill Vermillion Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL In article <13816@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: >Maurice Baker wrote way back in volume 10, issue 716 (ok, I'll get >caught up on reading some day soon, honestly): >| 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: And one I tried gave me a choice of leaving voice mail, or holding. Since the item was important, I was on site at a customers location with a hardware problem, I pushed the button that said I would wait. Every thirty seconds or so I would get a message about everyone being busy, etc, and THEN about three minutes into holding, it automatically dumped me into voicemail, and the ONLY choice was to leave a message, or hang up. That is WRONG in my book! Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #751 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13085; 22 Oct 90 1:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13888; 21 Oct 90 23:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02687; 21 Oct 90 22:37 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:19:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #752 BCC: Message-ID: <9010212219.ab08619@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:18:11 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 752 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [John Higdon] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Steve Rhoades] Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Stephen Friedl] Re: Network Guide [Peter da Silva] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Vance Shipley] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Miguel Cruz] Re: A Good Word For MCI Mail [Paul Wilczynski] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell Date: 21 Oct 90 11:43:42 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Dan Ross writes: > I ordered Touch-Tone on Thursday, and will have it Friday. I had not > ordered it as a protest against charging extra for something which > (according to what I'd read) was _cheaper_ to provide! Have other > areas eliminated the charge? Over a year ago, Pac*Bell offered, among other things, to eliminate the touch tone charges and convert Zone 2 calling areas to Zone 1 (local) if the PUC would allow the company to operate under the "blank check" school of regulation. That was August of 1989. It is now October of 1990. They got "blank check" regulation. We're still waiting for the charges to be dropped. It is amazing to talk to people who are convinced that the charges have already been dropped. Pac*Bell's advertising and media campaign was so effective that just yesterday I astounded a rather telecom-savvy person with the revelation that he was still paying touch tone charges. Pac*Bell's excuse is that it is still trying to figure out how to replace the revenue that will be lost by removing the charge. Someday people will learn that Pac*Bell is long on promises but short on delivery. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steve Rhoades Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 23:10:11 GMT In article <13846@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: >Apparently, when you ask for a directory >number in PA, you get the usual computer generated answer, followed by >the suggestion that for an additional 30 cents, you can be connected >automatically. Presumably, these are for local calls, or perhaps in >addition to the toll charges. This service is available in the northern section of Oakland, Calif. also. An otherwise local call costs 35 cents (normally 20 cents). Apparently it's only available from "real" (Pac*Bell) coin phones. Internet: slr@tybalt.caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ From: Stephen Friedl Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Date: 21 Oct 90 08:04:15 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA > [Moderator's Note: I think they [NYT] made the assumption (mostly correct) > that business phones would probably not be non-pub; thus in the > process of sorting out who to call and who not to call, all non-pubs > were assumed to be residential for the purpose of filing the number in > one compartment or another. PAT] I'm not so sure about this. Virtually all business have many more than one telephone line, and only the main "entry point" numbers will be published -- it's the default for additional lines. Four out of my five telephone lines at home are non-pub, but I certainly don't have an "unlisted" number in the traditional sense. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl [Moderartor's Note: Please see my message in the last issue. Non-pub is not the same as not-listed. If I cross check all the supplementary lines into your business, they will still show up with your business name even though they won't all appear in the directory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Network Guide Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:05:07 GMT It wouldn't take much change to allow anonymous UUCP to provide email at least as convenient as FAX. You would send mail to , and it queues up a uux rmail to that number. You'd just need a routing script that adds the appropriate line to the Systems file before queueing the UUCP. The biggest problem is standardising chat scripts. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:47:34 GMT In article <13789@accuvax.nwu.edu> Will Martin writes: >1) Is there a *law* to the effect that someone digging on private >property must "do a JULIE" or otherwise investigate what may be >underground there before digging? Sure, doing that is a good idea, but >is it actually legally required? In California (at least in my area), you don't HAVE to call, but you are still responsible if you injure a cable. >2) This was work on ordinary (it appears) residential property. Why >would a major utility service trunk, as opposed to a feeder, be >located under such property, as opposed to under municipal-owned or >public property like a right-of-way, where one would expect such >utility services to be run? Sometimes the major utility runs are installed LONG before the subdivision is created. In that case, you can conceivably get utilities anywhere under a property. Generally, the house must be sited so that the utilities can be dug up if needed, though I once saw an old subdivision that had a major sewer main under the principal residence. For a new subdivision, it is very common to run phone, water, and electric utilities under the property edge, where the sidewalk would be, rather than in the street. >Would there be something in the >homeowner's deed or title-search papers showing an easement for this >use, that the homeowner would be expected to know about? Yes, absolutely. The easements would show on both the subdivision maps and the property map. > ... indicating an underground cable ran that way; I've seen such signs >many places, and I would have thought it was the duty (and good >business sense!) of the telco to keep such signs maintained and >in-place over such an important cable run. I've seen maps where the utilities were shown as big red lines. I guess the homeowner planted over the red... :-) Most homeowners would not appreciate the phone company planting "little flags" through their front yards to mark the easement. In any event, the homeowner is free (under the terms of the easement) to do whatever he wants to the surface, as long as the phone company has the right to dig it up if necessary (with no compensation to the homeowner). It's up to the homeowner and the contractor to know what's under the ground. This was a phone fiber. One day my neighbor had a contractor putting in a stairway of railroad ties in the front lawn. They were held to the ground with long steel pipe sections. I watched one of the workmen stop a sledgehammer swing in mid stroke when a passing PG&E repairman told him he was directly above a 12 KV underground line. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 14:25:56 GMT In <13826@accuvax.nwu.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >All of the above sounds reasonable to me, *except* that last line. >What I object to is going after the cost of lost service. That was >caused by proven bad management and bad planning. >[Moderator's Note: (Pat goes on to mention a lot of valid costs occasioned by the cable cut that IBT would not otherwise have incurred.) What we have here seems to be the technological equivalent of the classic "thin-skull" law school tort problem. The tortfeasor "takes their victim as they find them." If an ordinary person, negligently bumped on the skull, would only have a headache, it's no defense when the actual victim suffers a fractured skull and dies. "But for the action of the tortfeasor, the injury would not have occured, and the tortfeasor is liable for the total damage." In the case of the cable cut, the cut did occur, the contractor was responsible, an ordinary contractor following the customs of the profession would have "done a JULIE," and then there would have been at least some legal protection. One could still argue that when a excavator encounters an unknown obstacle, they should give it at least some cursory examination before using brute force to remove it. In this case, no JULIE was done, no examination of the obstacle was made, and the contractor is likely to pay a *lot* of money to compensate for the resulting damages. (Or the contractor's insurance company!) riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:31:27 GMT In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels) writes: >We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus. I >recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info >to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30 >seconds if they are answered or not. Any PBX's not have this problem? >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX. But someone would have to engineer it. This shouldn't be too hard; digital trunks configured as TIE lines should do it. Most telco's have in the past been reluctant to provide answer supervision for some reason but today it should'nt be too dificult at all if you're willing to do whatever is required AKA installing T1 if you don't already have it. US West recently announced they would provide answer supervision on analog lines as well. I'm not sure how many PBX's can support this but i know that northern telecom's SL-1/M-1 can as well as mitel's sx line. >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >the system must pay for local calls? The residents may not be businesses but the telcom administration is. They are running a business of aggregating the use of those resident phones over a service provided to the school. The school however doesn't have to charge the residents for local calls :) >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :) ------------------------------ From: mnc@us.cc.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Organization: University of Michigan Computing Center, Ann Arbor Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 01:16:45 GMT In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 749, Message 5 of 11 >We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus. I >recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info >to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30 >seconds if they are answered or not. Any PBX's not have this problem? >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] Hmmmm .. our school had a 30,000-line DMS for three years before we got answer supervision on outside calls ... I think there's a little more to it than just cheapness on the school's part. Miguel Cruz [Moderator's Note: In the original message, I unfortunatly neglected to add the smiley symbol :) at the end of the remarks. I was only joshing with the original writer. Of all the telecom equipment manufacturers today, AT&T is probably the best, or one of the best, and certainly not inexpensive. You have to pay for quality. I guess I should have phrased it more positively saying that using AT&T equipment, of all the kinds available, you'd expect something like call supervision to be standard. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 06:03 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: A Good Word About MCI Mail tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes (about my comments on lowering of MCI Mail prices) .... >> Don't forget about the fact that, in the past 18 months or so, MCI >> Mail ... -- introduced toll-free access. >But when I complained about the ending of the local numbers, they told >me they were centralizing the service via MCI 800 numbers as a COST >SAVING MEASURE. I have to admit that this is the first complaint I've heard about being able to reach MCI Mail for free anywhere in the country. >> -- introduced the Preferred Pricing option which gives up to 75% savings >> for the first 40 email messages and/or pages of fax. > But you PAY $10 per month for this! The $10 you pay _includes_ the first 40 email messages and/or pages of fax. It's not the same as telephone services where you pay a fee and then pay extra for the phone calls. If you send 40 7500-character email messages (@ $1.00 each = $40 on regular billing), your savings is 75% ($30/$40). If you send 40 1-page faxes (@$.80 each = $32 on regular billing), your savings is 69% ($22/$32). >> Paul Wilczynski >> Krislyn Computer Services >> MCI Mail Agency > OH! ANOTHER MCI Mail agency rep! I'm not sure what this comment means (except for sarcasm, obviously). There is more than one agency in the country, and we all speak for ourselves. > Bottom line: They are raising the rates. Period. Yep, you're absolutely right. If I seemed to imply they weren't, I apologize. > One interesting thing ... the billing insert didn't say this, but the > rep pointed out that since I am on the $10 per month high volume plan, > I don't pay an annual fee anyway. Glad you mentioned this ... I wish I had remembered to! :-) [Moderator's Note: The thing with the 800 number was nice, but some folks already were in a local area where a call to MCI Mail was 'free', or within their local calling area. As a result, to raise the service charge now saying 'you can call us for free on the 800 number gives those folks no special comfort. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:50:04 GMT In article <13848@accuvax.nwu.edu> mdb@abcom.att.com (5013) writes: >A while back I saw a thread that descibed how I could turn off call >waiting while I am using my modem. What I would like to know, if the >person I am calling has call waiting also, can I turn his feature off >also? You as the caller couldn't and shouldn't be able too. But that gives rise to the question: can you turn call waiting off on an existing call? I just tried it: I flashed and dialed *70 got the three beeps and was cut through to the existing call. So if you had some control over what happened when you called the other number you could have them initiate blocking. Of course you would also have to solve the loss of carrier problem. vance ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #752 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15454; 22 Oct 90 3:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16842; 22 Oct 90 1:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04495; 22 Oct 90 0:41 CDT Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 0:08:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #753 BCC: Message-ID: <9010220008.ab26859@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Oct 90 00:08:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 753 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding [Douglas Scott Reuben] Cell Phone Price/Rates Info [Mark Earle] Modems With Cellular Telephones [Roger Fajman] Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Nigel Allen] EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [John Stanley] Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21-OCT-1990 03:29:47.96 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding Once again, Metro Mobile, the "A"/Nonwireline Cellular provider in Connecticut and Rhode Island, has proven to me that it has, in my opinion, the stupidest and rudest customer service people in the business. To those not "blessed" enough to use their service, this is the company that used to have a pretty flaky DMX to New York City, which never worked well, and was always overloaded. (A DMX allows one to roam into another area and still receive calls there, as well as, in some cases, call-forwaring, and other custom calling features...). After three letters to Metro, they finally managed to get it fixed in April, and has worked pretty well ever since. Good, right? Nope ... In May, for 3 days (a weekend plus Monday), they managed to cross-connect all of their 977 prefix numbers to the U.S. Sprint "950" access port. So not only could callers not get in touch with me, but they got a nice Sprint tone, and then had to pay for the calls since Sprint seems to return supervision on those calls. Great, another long letter asking for a refund of all those calls, etc. Last week, I get my bill, and it is *three* times what it normally is! So I take a closer look, and guess what? They apparently decided to start charging AIRTIME (not tolls/land charges, but airtime) for call-forwarding, something they never had done in the past, and something which I *specifically* asked about when I initially signed up for service. AND, they just started charging on Sept 14th .. NO notice, NO pamphlets in the mail, not even a phone call - On Sept 14th, suddenly, all call-forward calls have an airtime charge next to them! So I call up Metro Mobile, and ask: Me> "Why am I being charged airtime for forwarded calls?" Metro> "Oh, we always did that...". Me> "Uh...so why do all my bills for the past two years fail to have such charges?" Metro> "You're probably just reading them wrong..." (!!!!!!) Me> "Err ... yeah ... can I talk to your supervisor?" Metro> "It's not HER [superivsor's] fault you read your bills improperly!" (more !!!!!!!!) ....so I listen to dead air for a while, and then the superivsor, Sharon Ballard, comes on: Me> (repeat the whole thing about suddenly getting charged) Sharon> "Oh, we were having a software problem, we've corrected it now..." Me> "FOR TWO YEARS???!!!! - you've had this problem for two years and you only managed to correct it now?" (which, after thinking about it for a while, isn't all that implausible with Metro...! :-) ) Sharon> "Well, we charge it now, regardless..." After this delightful conversation, I figure it is time to write them yet another letter, explaining to them why I don't think I should pay a MONTHLY charge for Call-Forwarding ($4), as well as AIRTIME for forwarded calls. I believe I've read from the numerous posts on this subject that both systems in Chicago no longer charge airtime for call-forwarding, and was wondering if there are any other areas in North America where this is also the case. Metro's usual response to customer complaints is "Oh, but all the other systems do the same thing...", which is the answer I got when I asked what reason they had for charging DOUBLE airtime for Call-Waiting and Three-way calling. (Basically, they want to make some more money is what it came down to... - So much for competition in the Cellular industry! Neat little duopoly...). It would be nice if this time I could refute that argument by giving them a list of systems which are a bit more enlightened, and do not charge airtime for call-forwarding. I'd really appreciate just a brief note letting me know the name of the system and where it is located, if, as I said, there are any such systems. I'll summarize if anyone is interested. Thanks in advance for any/all help! P.S. Favorite Metro Mobile Quote: Me> "Hi, would you know the roam port number for Reno, Nevada?" Metro> "No, I don't...." Favorite Quote #2: Me> "I've notived on my bill a daily charge for using the Baltimore / Washington D.C. system, when, as you can see from my bill, I was in Westchester County, NY, at the time." Metro> "Were you near water?" Me> "Ummm...yeah...Long Island Sound...why?" Metro> "Oh, well THAT explains it - those signals travel VERY far over water...we get that all the time!" Me> "But Baltimore is 200 miles away!!!!" Metro> "But it's over *water*! - THAT'S what does it all the time!" (Maybe I should sign up with British Telecom in the UK so I can get service when I can afford to buy a boat, huh? I mean, the UK is only 3000 miles of "WATER" away!!! :-) ) (In all fairness, they have a technically superior system. It would be nice if they were able to match the quality of the service of their employees with the level of technical proficiency found in their network ... It would also be nice if they weren't such a bunch of cheap penny-pinchers who try to nickel and dime anything they can, and make up ridiculous excuses for it later on!) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 18:22:24 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Cell Phone Price/Rates Info Cellular Phone Notes From South Texas As of today, the bargain-basement prices tempted me and I've purchased a cellular phone. For $80, I get a Uniden President 4000 GTS w/hands free, installed, antenna included. Any one have the programming notes for this phone? It looks middle of the road as far as features. Don't have it yet (get installed MON) will comment further after some use. Rates, with the wireline carrier, Southwestern Bell: $40/month includes call wait, forward, three way calling. Airtime: Peak, 38 cents/min non peak, zero cents (non peak is 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., all day Sat/Sun). Other plan (which I didn't get): $25/mo, cf, cw, 3way. Peak 38/min non peak 22/min. 'Small Talk; 15/mo, no custom features; all minutes 58 cents each Big talk; $125/mo, 22 cents all times, but includes 300 "free" minutes, plus custom calling. Cellular One, the 'other' provider, offers the same except for the package with zero off peak. I had to sign a one year contract, with the penalty that if you quit before the year is up, the balance (40/mo times months remaining in year) are due in a lump sum. All in all not bad, now once I get the thing we'll see how it really works. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 13:49:52 EDT Subject: Modems With Cellular Telephones Some people here would like to use a laptop PC and modem with a celluar telephone for the purpose of giving demonstrations in various locations where a modular jack may not be available. Can anyone recommend cellular telephones and adapters for this purpose? We don't have a particular cellular telephone yet -- it would be purchased specifically for this. The phone would be stationary, of course, while the demonstration is going on, but would be inside various buildings. A related question is how well various modem technologies work over cellular telephones. We are mainly interested in v.22bis (2400 bps) and V.32 (9600 bps) so that so special modem would be needed at the other end. Is it important to have MNP or V.42 error correction? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 04:45 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. The Telephone Pioneers of America also operate in Canada, at least in the operating territories of Bell Canada (most of Ontario and Quebec) and Martitime Tel & Tel (Nova Scotia). Our Moderator writes: > They are still around in the local operating companies, and at AT&T. I think that Pioneers in independent telcos (the term used pre-divestiture to refer to non-Bell system telephone companies) belonged to a separate organization, the Independent Telephone Pioneers. I do not know whether this group is still separate from the main body of Pioneers. Does anyone know whether any of the long-distance carriers have their own Pioneer chapters? I rather doubt it, since traditionally the Pioneers were a service club for telco employees who had been with the company a long time (21 years, perhaps, although the Bell Canada clubs have reduced the requirement somewhat). People who weren't yet eligible to join could help out as "Future Pioneers". Interestingly, the president of the Telephone Pioneers of America is always an executive of a telephone company, typically the president or a vice-president. As much as I admire the work of the Telephone Pioneers, I suspect that the organization was founded at least partly to foster the idea that telephone company workers and their managers are "one big, happy family". ------------------------------ Subject: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation From: John Stanley Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:55:12 EDT Organization: One Man Brand In the Network Guide Special Edition, and a recent normal edition, the comments have been made that a flood of email to a user does not prevent him or her from receiving wanted, or sending outbound, email. Those who believe this, please consider the following points: 1. Disk space is never unlimited, and a flood of email can quickly fill a disk to overflowing. If this is the main system disk, this can cause catastrophic failures. Even places like AT&T do not have unlimited disk space. A catastrophic failure of the system most certainly will prevent sending email. Before someone says "ahh, but this is poor system management and not the emailer's fault", consider the parallel to poor system management which allows guessable passwords on root accounts and cracker breakin's. The system worked until someone said "hey, lets all send mail to this system". 2. Bandwidth is limited. Some companies are linked to the network only through UUCP and a 2400 baud modem. If the mail flow reached the point where the modem is in use 24 hours a day, when would outgoing mail be sent? Of course, they should get a 9600 baud modem. They should connect another system to the outside. Consider the parallel to junk phone calls and the suggestion that the recipient should get a second phone line if they want to be able to make calls. 3. Money is limited. Some email systems charge for messages. When the costs reach a certain point, guess what will be cut off? Consider flooding an 800 number with calls. When an 800 number is no longer cost effective because it is clogged, it gets turned off. 4. Patience is limited. Those same companies using UUCP generally have a friendly gateway that connects them for free. If the manager of this free gateway determines that his system is overloaded because of a flood of mail to one of his feeds, the easiest way to solve the problem is to cut the feed. All of a sudden, no incoming or outgoing mail. If someone decided to initiate a flood of mail to me, I would quickly be overloaded. During the times I am getting my mail feed I am not only unable to generate outgoing or read incoming mail, I am unable to make voice phone calls. I have had to dump a UUCP connection at times when I needed to make other calls. If the flood came to my CIS account, it would quickly reach the point where I could no longer afford to read it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Get a 9600 baud modem. Get a second phone line. Get a multi-tasking UNIX box so I can at least read and write mail while the flood comes in. Right. Get a life. I have better things to spend money on than the preventing the possibility I might someday be overloaded with mail. If the solution doesn't save me money, I can't implement it. Sounds a lot like a business, doesn't it? Finally, there was a comment about a flood of email to a corporate leader not causing any damage. It most certainly will. At the extreme, it will cause the termination of email to that site for one of the above reasons. At least, it will make the executive stop reading his own email, if he still did. Instead of having the ear of the boss, the emailer will have the ear of the secretary who will probably not understand anything in the mail and who will lump it in with "complaints". A flurry of email messages will also decrease the signal to noise ratio of the medium to the point that the effort to find the pearls is not worth the benefit. BTW, thanks for the network issue, and yes, please, Marty -- information on using fred@wp.psi.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 23:53:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation I'd like to respond to some points raised by John Stanley in his article to the Digest. Mr. Stanley raises all sorts of dire predictions about what he terms a 'flood' of email to any given person or site on the net. He points out that an overflow of mail can crash the system, and that even big commercial systems are not exempt. Then he says, when this inevitable crash occurs, because of people like myself suggesting that one might write letters to persons in authority, there will be other consequences: Because the lines will be clogged 24 hours per day, mail will not be able to get out. Because money is limited, some email systems charge for messages. Therefore when this becomes too expensive, it will be cut off. Company presidents will be forced to have their secretary dispose of the mail unread, lest they (the president) should be confronted with ideas and thoughts from the customers. Doesn't it occur to you, Mr. Stanley that news takes much more time to transmit than mail, and usually, a lot more space on the disks to maintain? Why not cut off news instead, Mr. Stanley? After all, some of it is quite vindictively written, is it not; and about many of the same companies mentioned here, no? I'll tell you what, folks: Let's just all shut our mouths and say nothing. Let's all go back to the old single server BBS lines and leave three line messages for each other asking for pirated programs we can run on our C-64. Isn't that all this medium is supposed to be good for? You want to demonstrate the legitimacy of the electronic press? Then begin to use it, and see to it the right people have the opportunity to read it. One of two things will happen: Either they will completely squash it, or they will begin to hold it in strong respect. I'll gamble on the latter, because if the former is the case, what have we lost anyway? I have never suggested that a vindictive effort be made to swamp or 'flood' a system. But at the same time, I'll be damned if I have someone like Mr. Stanley tell me I should not enourage people to write and express themselves lest the dire consequences he predicts come true and some site cuts itself off from the outside world rather than have to deal with the real and powerful force of email and electronic publishing. In the next issue of the Digest, another writer will continue this topic. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #753 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16763; 22 Oct 90 4:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26508; 22 Oct 90 2:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16842; 22 Oct 90 1:44 CDT Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 1:38:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #754 BCC: Message-ID: <9010220138.ab10534@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Oct 90 01:38:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 754 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Qatar's Telephones [David Leibold] Looking for a Personalized "Ring" Switch [Lenny Tropiano] Re: Ancient ANI [John Higdon] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Two Islands in Washington, DC [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [David G. Cantor] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: Qatar's Telephones Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 16:53:43 EDT A report in the _Toronto_Star_ made mention of the country of Qatar, close to the Iraq/Kuwait crisis. Canadian forces are stationed at Qatar, preparing for possible battle. In the city of Doha, it is reported that one can tell how financially well-off someone is doing by finding out how many telephone numbers there are. Sheik Suhaim bin Nassir Jassim Thani (one of the ruling family) has 62 phone numbers listed there. Sheik Nassir bin Mohd Jabor Thani is a relative pauper, with only four phones listed in the book, including a phone for the garden. ------------------------------ Subject: Looking for a Personalized "Ring" Switch Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York Date: 21 Oct 90 21:33:23 EDT (Sun) From: Lenny Tropiano I'd like to find a company that sells one of these gadgets, since SWBT is nice enough to provide this service now, I'd like to be able to route "certain" calls to certain devices (modems, voice mail, etc..) If someone could direct me to the company, and approximately what it would cost, I'd appreciate it. Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems lenny@icus.ICUS.COM {ames,pacbell,decuac,sbcs,rayssd}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny ----- ICUS Software Systems -- PO Box 1; Islip Terrace, NY 11752 ------ ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Date: 21 Oct 90 20:04:06 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Oct 21 at 19:05, Peter da Silva writes: > We get the message. ANI is not CID. Fine. So what is the *external* > difference between ANI and CID? You say it sends the calling number > shortly before the called number in an interexchange call. Fine. But > when it gets to the end user what's the difference? Is the number > that shows up on the screen (no matter how it's delivered) any different? Well, yes, there is a considerable difference, but that wasn't my point either. I am aware that some are irritated by those who insist on the proper terminology when discussing technical topics, but without a common language reference things can start becoming very confusing. As far as the external difference goes, it is night and day. ANI is used primarily for billing calls and as such is automatically processed into call records or a database for marketing purposes. CID's major manifestation will be a number showing up on someone's LCD window. If I am in a room with people discussing telephony and someone says, "I would like to know if someone can help me utilize my ANI to the fullest", my immediate thought is that the person operates an IEC or a 900 service and is wishing some industrial help. And, yes, it does make a difference how it's delivered. Caller-ID is always delivered to an end user. ANI is typically delivered to a "brother in the cloth" common carrier (whether he, in turn, deliviers the data to an end user is irrelavent). Caller-ID is delivered to the end user according to Bellcore standards. ANI is delivered in many flavors. ANI is industrial; CID is consumer. BTW, if someone has two lines and a very smart two-line phone that can conference and divert, do you say that person has Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, and 3-Way Calling? I don't think so. Confusing ANI with CID is the direct equivalent of saying that a person with CW, CF, and 3-Way has two lines. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 15:11:28 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Organization: Summit NJ > [Moderator's Note: You say you could 'never be a member since those > working for them are not eligible', but I think the rule is you have > to be employed by a telco for twenty years to be eligible. At least > under the old consolidated Bell System, twenty years continuous > employment was the required minimum for Illinois Bell people. The last I heard, employment was dropped to 15 years. About 6 years ago, the drop from 20 to 15 was phased in one year at a time, so the first year of the phase-in, 19 years employment was required, then 18 the second year, etc. I was offered the chance to join when I had completed 17 years employment with AT&T. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk [Moderator's Note: I hope you took them up on the invitation to join. Telephone Pioneers is a wonderful, worthwhile organization. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 15:26:09 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Two Islands in Washington, DC Organization: Summit NJ > Columbia Island is a part of DC that is "across the Potomac". In > telecom terms, that means (at least when I took a walk through this > area in the late 1970s) that the pay phone in its park area just off > the George Washington Memorial Parkway is on a DC, not Virginia, > exchange. > Also in Washington DC: Theodore Roosevelt Island (between the Theodore > Roosevelt Bridge and the Key Bridge) has no phones that I know of, and > is reached by a foot bridge from Virginia but is, according to a map, > in DC. Maybe this will simplify it. While the nominal boundary between Maryland and Virginia is the Potomac River, the entire river is part of Maryland (unlike the Delaware between NJ and PA or the Hudson between NJ and NY, where the middle of the river is the boundary). Thus when Maryland and Virginia together donated the ten mile square for the national capital, any Potomac River islands came from Maryland. Therefore nothing in the river was part of the land returned to Virginia in 1846. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 21 Oct 90 20:27:38 EDT (Sun) From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" 5013 (Mike) wrote: >What I would like to know, if the person I am calling has call waiting >also, can I turn his feature off also? The Moderator's Reply: >No you cannot. It is up to the person who owns the line to decide what >features he wants on or off. An admittedly unlikely scenerio is one where the person you're talking to has Call Waiting and Conference Calling simultaneously. In that case, you can ask the other party to tap the switchhook and dial *70 or 1170. If the other party hears dial tone again, then he/she would tap the switchhook once more to return to you. This disables Call Waiting in the middle of the conversation. But, as the Moderator states, only the person you're talking to can do this. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-) [Moderator's Note: And really, isn't it sort of rude to ask the person on the other end to suspend their telephone features just so you can talk without possible interupption? If they wanted it that way, they would do it that way. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:14:38 -0700 From: "David G. Cantor" Apparently the telco expects to be completely reimbursed for business lost due to the damaged cable. However, most telco tariffs (written by telcos, of course) provide that if the telco fails to provide service (regardless of cause, even gross neglicence) the most that the telco is liable for is the charge for the service. Perhaps the Court should take this into account when it assesses damages against the contractor who damaged the cable. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu [Moderator's Note: I think that will be considered in the case at hand. There have already been so many suits filed in the matter both against the contractor and telco that I suspect they will wind up being consolidated and heard at one time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 01:00:24 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining Gee, and I naively thought this thread had died a merciful death, but I guess you gotta allow for slow readers and PAT's propensity to continue publishing responses that take his side even when he cuts off ones that don't (like my last response to his last comment). PAT inserted his point of view sarcasticly in a recent issue (748?) which I won't waste the effort on responding to. MODERATION has its privileges I guess in which moderation is not an obligation. Actually, I'm willing to live with that given all the work this obviously takes; only a fanatic would do it in the first place. As I have acknowledged consistently, I'm not a lawyer (one of MY few virtues) nor a telecom expert like many readers, so the things I postulate may not be supported in statute or tariff, but I think I can support their logic and good sense with anybody. > Mr. Sicherman, you overlook one difference between the telephone and > email: if you are bombarded with incoming telephone calls, you cannot > use your phone for outgoing calls, nor can you receive desired > incoming calls, so indeed you have been deprived of a service you are > paying for. I think you are taking a very narrow view of things. First, the email has to get through to the receipient so there is a bandwidth consumption through nodes, networks and accounts, the nature and extent of which may vary from system to system and with the actual amount of mail. Second, the effect of this load on the recipient's email service may also vary from implementation to implementation and in some indeterminable portion of cases indeed interfere with his use of the service. We haven't even addressed the effect upon the providor (MCIMAIL, etc.) and whther they have a case and a cause for interference with normal operations. > But if you are bombarded with email, your outgoing email can still get > out and your desired incoming email (at least on a large commercial > system like MCI Mail or AT&T Mail, where storage space is not a > factor) still reaches you. You may be exasperated, annoyed, angered, > or incensed, but you have not been deprived of email service. I seriously doubt that any tribunal would decide on the (il)legality or liability based upon the size of the recipients disk space. If anything, this would impact amount of damages. This would call for rather detailed foreknowledge by the perpetrators and I don't think has anything to do with the central issue: which is whether a group of individuals 'conspired' to send large volumes of email traffic with the intent to harass the recipient. I do not know how a judge would rule or jury would decide on this; I just think that if the medium is not a public forum (so freedom of speech is not an issue) and if the volume is the message, there is an argument for harassment and a case for conspiracy among the contributors. > If you wish to bombard me, kindly do it on GEnie or MCI Mail; at my > accounts on local pubnet sites, storage limitation *is* a factor. Seems to me this supports my argument: you want to restrict the freedom of others to communicate with you on a volume-dependent basis; why shouldn't other others have the same right ? ---------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks for letting me know I am a fanatic. I'm sure David Tamkin appreciates your comments about him being a slow reader also. Not everyone can devote their entire day to reading TELECOM Digest, Mr. Sicherman. One reader on MCI Mail said he is currently about thirty issues behind. Will you graciously pardon us if in a few days he gets around to your message and decides to respond to it? And if you don't mind, we prefer not to have meta-conversations here, as per your 'gee, I thought this thread had died a merciful death ...' . If you do not wish to continue discussing something, Mr. Sicherman, then *don't discuss it*. One of the wonderful things about net news is that you can skip over the messages you do not want to read. Contrary to your assertion that because I did not agree with your message I would not print it, you will note that indeed, your messages do get published here, like lots of others. Or did you mean that your messages were not printed here as a priority item, Mr. Sicherman? Was that it? Yours were to be moved to the top of the stack? Although by net custom, my title here is Moderator, I more view my role as facilitator and editor. I am admittedly, a telecom activist. I encourage people to do things which in their estimation will make a difference for the better. Your arguments against the use of email as a way of informing, educating and persuading people are invalid. The dire consequences of which you and others have spoken are unrealistic. You freely admit to not being a solicitor. Why don't we leave it at that? No one here is encouraging anyone to 'flood' or 'disrupt' the email service of any site. Define those words as you wish, Mr. Sicherman. It does not matter, really. Dozens of copies of this Digest go daily to MCI Mail and AT&T Mail. Your message will be included in the current mailing. I guess I am already causing a flood of mail, considering I get over a hundred letters daily and try to print at least 25-40 of them. The amount of text transmitted as news on any given day greatly exceeds the amount of email between sites. Would you stop that also? Some of it is pretty vindictive toward the same companies we talk about here. Better still, perhaps you and Mr. Stanley could start a mailing list and say all the Correct Things To Be Said each day, and route your messages to the Correct Departments and the Correct People. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #754 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03877; 23 Oct 90 19:01 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ci05351; 23 Oct 90 16:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29146; 23 Oct 90 3:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05550; 23 Oct 90 2:09 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 1:40:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #755 BCC: Message-ID: <9010230140.ab31918@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Oct 90 01:40:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 755 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Peter G. Capek] Charges for Directory Enquiries [Colum Mylod] Who or What is ITI? [David Smith] No-Fee DECUServe Mailbox [John R. Covert] A Way to Avoid Telemarketers? [Gary Segal] ANA (?) in New Jersey [Douglas Scott Reuben] Whatever Happened to Zenith Numbers? [Lance Gay] Wondering About Printed Sources Describing Net Failures [Gregory Rawlins] Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Martin B. Weiss] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Carl Moore] Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Mark Brader] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 02:59:11 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same time. I believe that there are services which allow this on a nationwide basis, or even on a local basis through a special exchange, but it seems as though, by proper programming in the switch (assuming it is a digital switch, which should have no problem "replicating" a half speaking path to many listeners), one could have many callers listen to a single recording. All that would seem to be needed is for the owner of the line to designate that this should happen, and perhaps to designate a maximum time that any single caller should be allowed to listen. This latter wouldn't even really be necessary, I guess; the caller is paying for the call as usual. I can't believe this is a new idea, but I've heard of it being offered as a service by the phone company. Is it? Peter Capek [Moderator's Note: Actually, the theatre could use voice mail from a commercial voice mail service with DID ports. For example, I use Centel Voice Mail. It has about 30 ports, and up to that many callers can be on at one time, via any combination of mailboxes. The theatre could, as an example, have 29 callers at once, leaving one port for everyone else! It works like an accordion at partioning the boxes and the ports. Plus, most voice mail systems can have more than one box linked via a 'front end box' like mine is. A caller would be told to press 1 through 7 for the various theatres or 8 for future attractions. Voice mail is easy to use and easy to update at any time. The cost is quite inexpensive. At Centel mine costs $7 per month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Charges for Directory Enquiries Date: 22 Oct 90 12:48:03 GMT Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands To add to the list of Directory Enquiries: is it free or not: Ireland is free. National & local inquiries 190, international is 114. Both are free. Both are jammed up, and it takes much patience to get an answer. Calls are redirected from region to region if the local region is busy, not that this seems to improve matters. I've often had to call the international enquiry on 114 with problems, and NEVER got an answer. The phone book lists a Dublin number if 114 doesn't work. Netherlands: National is 008 and costs 15 (Dutch) cents per call, maximum of two numbers given out at a go. If it is busy you get an automatic message "Ten people waiting before you". This service goes to bed at 20.00, with a recording telling you to call another number. I tried one night at 01.00 and got just ringing tone. International is 0018 and free and stays up all night. The Dutch version of MINITEL has on-line enquiries: in NL on 06-7400 for 50ct/min, int. +31 6 7400 is probably blocked. Spain: Local costs because they believe you could look it up yourself. National (i.e. not your own area) is free. I believe international is also free. France: Both are free from private phones. Local is 10, international was 19 33 , i.e. for Germany dial 19 33 49 (19 is Int. access code, 33 is France so they use 33 in France to access the operator.) I'm not sure if this is still in use. In 1986 labels went up on phone cells claiming that Enquiries were "gratis" from this cell. From personal experience the cell still swallowed money. Of course with MINITEL enquiries Telecom France may see verbal enquiries as a bad lot. Germany: I think it is free. Local enquiries 1188, national 01188, international 001188 -- nice pattern, so long as N. America doesn't create an area code 188! I can see all places charging eventually. It is abused by so many people not keeping better records, and is very busy in all countries I've been in. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ From: David Smith Subject: Who or What is ITI? Date: 22 Oct 90 22:38:26 GMT Organization: IPCC-ECB, Columbus, Ohio As part of the experience of renting a vacation house in southern Florida recently, a friend made the unhappy acquaintance of a phone company known as ITI, with which the owners or managers of the house had apparently contracted to provide phone service. He wanted to make a long-distance call. His options were to make it collect, to charge it to a third number, or to charge it to his credit card -- he couldn't charge it to the vacation house number. Collect and third-number charging were impossible under the circumstances. When he asked to charge it to his credit card, he was told that wasn't possible because "the computer was down." But, he was told, he could connect with an AT&T operator by dialing "00". Tried that -- didn't work -- called ITI operator back. Was told by another ITI operator he could get the AT&T operator with "*0". Tried that -- didn't work -- called ITI operator back. ITI operator tried to connect him with the AT&T operator -- but couldn't. Friend asked to speak with a supervisor. No supervisor available -- was given an address to write to, instead. What is ITI? Is it typical of something relatively new? Of something relatively common? [Moderator's Note: ITI is an 'alternate operator service', or AOS which purports to be a long distance carrier and alternative to that mean old ripoff, Ma Bell. The letters mean International Telesphere, Inc. Another division of the company operates 900 service, in the $29.95 for the first minute range. Still another division of the company sells/manages COCOTS. They really think they are something. I think they are sleaze. They weasel their way into companies and other places by promising lucrative commissions on calls, etc. They've been known to slam (genuine Bell) payphones, naming themselves the default carrier. Lots of folks could tell you stories about them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 12:02:53 PDT From: "John R. Covert 22-Oct-1990 0829" Subject: No-Fee DECUServe Mailbox >The Digital Equipment Computer Users Society (DECUS) runs a VAX Notes >Conferencing system called DECUServe that currently has a $65/year fee, >and is about to have a 56kb Internet connection installed. >The interesting thing is that the Decus leadership are in the process >of lowering the $65/year to $0/year. Decus membership IS required, but >costs nothing. The DECUServe Executive Committee has asked me to provide the following additional information about the above: 1) No-Fee DECUServe still requires the approval of the DECUS Board of Directors. This approval is not expected before 1 July 1991. Until No-Fee DECUServe is approved, subscriptions remain $65/year. 2) For information about DECUServe, please call 800 521-8950 and log in under the INFORMATION account. In addition to the annual fee, DECUServe subscribers pay their own telecommunications costs from their calling location to DECUServe. john ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: A Way to Avoid Telemarketers? Date: 22 Oct 90 15:33:06 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division jeh@dcs.simpact.com (Jamie Hanrahan) writes: >I think the latter. I was at a friend's house when they received a >survey call. There was some confusion because this house has two >lines, one private and one business. When the survey folks learned >that they had called the business line, they didn't want to talk >further. In this case, they were just calling every >randomly-generated number and asking. Hmm ... this gives my an idea! What if I were to answer my home phone with "Thank you for calling, how may I help you?" Would telemarketers and poll takers be confused and think they called a business? Would they care? Could this be an easy way to cause them to hang up first? Has anyone else tried this? Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2354 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ Date: 22-OCT-1990 17:16:27.41 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: ANA(?) in New Jersey Hi- I tried calling 200-222-2222 from a New Jersey Bell Payphone im Morristown, NJ, and instead of getting it to read me back the number, I got a New Jersey Bell operator! (ANA = Automatic Number Announcement ? Is this the correct term?) I asked her what sort of operator she was, ie, was she a "special operator" or an intercept operator, and she said "Nope, just a local operator..." I tried it again to see if by accident I didn't misdial (maybe 00-222-2222 or something), and again, a NJ Bell operator. Perhaps if a COCOT would allow this, dialing 200-222-2222 in NJ may be a good way to get to talk to a NJ Bell operator. (Dialing 0 or 10NJB-0 doesn't always work ... [what else is new? :-( ]) They also seem to have disabled the Touch Tone test, which, from what I recall, was 0-959-1234. (NOT to be confused with the "coin test", which still seems to work ... from payphones, obviously.) Finally, speaking of New Jersey, I noticed that AT&T is now offering service at a "discount" rate from North Jersey to NYC, like New York Tel and New Jersey Bell do. As with the NYTel and NJBell plans, you need to have a certain volume of calls before the plan saves anything. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Lance Gay Subject: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers? Date: 22 Oct 90 16:36:07 GMT Reply-To: gay@venice.sedd.trw.com (Lance Gay) Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA When I was younger growing up in Southern California, there existed ZENITH phone numbers. A typical one might be "ZENITH 1234". You accessed this number by dialing the operator and asking for ZENITH 1234. The operator would then manually connect you to the appropriate party. I think they might have been an early form of local toll-free number. Do these still exist? Lance J. Gay (N6BKQ) Internet: gay@venice.sedd.trw.com TRW Systems Engineering & Development Div. Phone: 213-764-9292 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 [Moderator's Note: In some parts of the country, like Chicago, they were known as 'Enterprise numbers', and yes, they were an early form of 800 service. Some Enterprise/Zenith numbers were for local calling only, while others were national in scope. They were no longer offered once 800 service became universal, but they were grandfathered to existing customers who wanted to keep them. I guess there are still a few -- very few -- operating. I did see one or two in the last issue of the Chicago alpha directory. The recipient of the call paid for the call itself and if memory serves me, a 25 cent surcharge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. E. Rawlins" Subject: Wondering About Printed Sources Describing Net Failures Date: 23 Oct 90 01:54:46 GMT I'm a recent subscriber to this newsgroup and I would like to know if there are published sources of the various phone system and net outages. I'm particularly looking for books that described some of the outages and the reasons for them with special emphasis on the net itself. For example, I've heard of the first arpanet plague in 1972 but aside from a brief mention in one of Comer's book I have never seen a book that talked about it. Surely there have been more since then? (For example, last year's worm.) Are these war stories collected somewhere? I'm writing about algorithms on graphs and networks and I would like to make it more interesting by describing the way these algorithms have failed in the real world (the '72 Arpanet failure is a good example of what can go wrong if one of the IMPs decides that it has a negative hop cost). Apologies for wasting bandwidth with a simple inquiry. I imagine this must be a fairly frequent question. Thanks, gregory ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted Date: 22 Oct 90 13:03:12 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In article <13841@accuvax.nwu.edu> 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: >Interesting, though, isn't it? I thought I was safe from COCOTs >because I never went near the fuzzy things, but it seems that they >come and get you even in the comfort and privacy of your own home! One thing that hasn't been addressed by the FCC NPRM and the legislation that was passed and signed by Bush (something he didn't veto for a change!) is the collect call issue. Presumably the choice of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's the way economics is supposed to work, anyway). If someone is calling you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose? You are essentially stuck with the choice made by the person calling you. As a result, you can still be had by an AOS despite your best intentions! Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are not quite exact opposites of each other. In sent-paid, you are paying for the decisions *you* make regarding the routing of the call and its duration. In collect calls, you have agreed to pay for *the caller's* decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend. So I usually say nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening from the moment I answer the call: Unless I hear 'this is the AT&T operator with a collect call, etc' I make it quick and offer to call back to wherever. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 9:52:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Yes, I also got that recording about 800-666-6258 being changed to 817-877-5629. The "..." inserted in the message by Arthur S Kamlet is just a repetition of the new-number message. However, at the end of the message, I got "VTK [pause] F". ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 22 Oct 1990 14:09:32 -0400 > M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the > line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ... Why, then, is it that I don't seem to know any of these "*most*" people? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #755 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17013; 24 Oct 90 4:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22953; 24 Oct 90 3:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05170; 24 Oct 90 2:00 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 1:18:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #756 BCC: Message-ID: <9010240118.ab16419@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Oct 90 01:18:37 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 756 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Roger Tang] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Jamie tatum] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [M. Spann] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [John Ruckstuhl] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Tad Cook] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA (really Pac*Bell) [Joe Konstan] Re: Telco "Customer Service" [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Carol Srpings] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Richard Lerner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Tang Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Date: 22 Oct 90 15:09:25 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article <13818@accuvax.nwu.edu> oplinger@sol.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) writes: !cmoore@brl.mil describes the process for a NY Times/CBS News poll: !How pray tell can they have generated 'telephone numbers ... formed by !random digits, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted !numbers' and then caused them to be 'screened so that only residences !would be called?' Is there some magic way to tell if a number is !residential or commercial, especially the unlisted ones. Or is this !simply a case of a newspaper article mixing facts and fiction? ![Moderator's Note: I think they made the assumption (mostly correct) !that business phones would probably not be non-pub; No, they don't do this. Based on my days as a telephone survey taker (NOT a solicitor!), we ASKED (or added two plus two when somebody answered, 'Joe's Pizza.'). There's all sorts of methodological screening techniques; some of theme are quite sophisticated. This one, however, really just requires the brains of an avocado. ------------------------------ From: Jamie tatum Date: Fri Oct 19 90 at 07:27:19 (EDT) Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Well we're lucky out here ... our pay phones do not charge for 800 numbers. Not only that, they're cheap at ten cents a call. (Local, of course!) I'm referring to Connecticut. You know, since David's mailbox put up EBBS, I don't think there has been one netting (Internet, etc.) board in all of Connecticut! INET: jtatum@gnh-porthole.cts.com UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-porthole!jtatum ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-porthole!jtatum@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA Date: 22 Oct 90 15:19:30 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13846@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: > I know we've talked about this in the Digest before, but I hadn't > realized any telco had implemented it yet. Yup. An interesting aside is thinking about how one would block this service on a PBX that allows access to DA, but would rather have users dial the number themselves. Maybe they should make DA a 976 number! 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: mike spann Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 22 Oct 90 19:14:13 GMT Reply-To: mike spann Organization: gammafax In article <13831@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > I hesitate to think what would happen if I tried to mail a >single check to their collection center in Lincoln, though: they'd >probably credit the whole payment to only one number and I'd need to >get the Des Plaines office not only to reallocate the payment but also >to remove the late charges: Lincoln's done that before. I pay four separate phone bills mailed to two addresses and with three different billing names with a single check each month. The bills come in two batches, (three on a 969 prefix and one on a 961 prefix) one week apart. I have never had Pac Bell incorrectly process my payment (knock on wood). Michael Spann mikes@gammalink.com Voice: +1-408-744-1430 Fax: +1-408-744-1549 UUCP: ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes CIS: 73747,441 ------------------------------ From: John Ruckstuhl Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 22 Oct 90 20:13:58 GMT Organization: UF CIS Dept. > What I would like to know, if the person I am calling has call waiting > also, can I turn his feature off also? Some respondents discuss how a call-recipient can disable their call-waiting. I observe that this is valuable when one is using a call-back security system for remote computer access via telephone. John R Ruckstuhl, Jr University of Florida ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Date: 22 Oct 90 16:31:13 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels cccc) writes... >We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus. I >recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info >to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30 >seconds if they are answered or not. Any PBX's not have this problem? >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >the system must pay for local calls? >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] No fair, Pat. It's NOT the fault of the PBX! Central offices routinely deny answer supervision to subscribers. It's not impossible for them to provide it, but as a rule, telcos consider answer supervision a private matter. (ISDN, on the other hand, normally provides it, but sometimes will fail when the other end is analog.) If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about it. Maybe they think it's a benefit of Centrex service, since that does provide accurate billing on message toll calls. (It doesn't pass supervision; it is CO-based, so the CO uses its own knowledge in writing up the bills.) So PBX users suffer. Maybe the FCC will eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far. 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: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 15:41:49 PDT In article <13749@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > {The Wall Street Journal} of October 16 has an article describing > recent announcements by MCI and Sprint of new programs to market 800 > service to residences. Highlights: > Apparently in either case, MCI customers get will get a > four-digit private security code to avoid the reception of unwanted > calls. I think the REAL reason for the "security code" is in the next paragraph: > Observation: Isn't there a real potential for running out of numbers > here? There's really only one area code's worth of 800 numbers, and > several hundred thousand of those have been assigned already. If > these services are successful in any serious sort of way, I see a real > constraint. Even if it were technically feasible to add another area > code or two for "reverse bill" service, advertising it and getting > people to know, as they do today, that "1-800" is free would certainly > take a while. If MCI uses a four digit security code, then that is another 10,000 customers that can use the same 800 number. I am sure it will work something like this: You dial the number, and get a voice-mail-like prompt asking for the security code. The security code actually routes you to the correct party. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 19:48:14 PDT From: Joe Konstan Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA (really Pac*Bell) In Telecom Digest V10 #752 Steve Rhoades writes: >This service is available in the northern section of Oakland, Calif. >also. An otherwise local call costs 35 cents (normally 20 cents). Actually it stretches up into at least Contra Costa County (Richmond and San Pable) as well and costs 35 cents IN ADDITION TO the 20 cents. I tried a local call and it asked for 55 cents. If nobody else has, I'll try more expensive calls and see how far within Pac*Bell land the service carries. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ From: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" Date: 22 Oct 90 15:17:56 GMT In article <13877@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > From the Pac*Bell repair "Gotcha" department: > Among my many residence lines is one from the #5 crossbar switch -- > the rest are on a 1ESS. I am not paying for TT on the Xbar line -- > they can't (or don't seem to be able to) turn it off. Anyway, I have > noticed for some time that it takes MUCH longer for calls to complete, > particularly long distance calls, on the Xbar than on the 1ESS. Why? I > don't know -- they both use archaic MF signaling. I don't think that this could be the case here, but when visiting my mother in a small town in Colorado last year I noticed an interesting implementation of TT. The town is still on the old (circa 1950?) rotary switch. Of course it can't handle TT in any way, right? What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it was not a pushbutton phone generating pulses. It was a phone that can so either with the switch set to tone position. I could clearly hear the DTMF. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 23 Oct 90 13:27:35 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <13612@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Haynes writes: >I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers >organization after the great Bell System breakup. They're still around in Columbus, it would seem. My wife had one of the good old volume-control handsets, since we're hard of hearing. The local PhoneCenter stores are selling them off (and may have already done so), and the 'new' phones just don't do the job quite as well. One day, my son (old enough to know better!) decided to take it apart to see how it worked. In short: he practically trashed it, my wife was devastated, and we somehow got it fixed by a telephone pioneer (either gratis or for a whole lot less than a new handset would have cost, if they were even obtainable. As a side note, she had to give up a promotion with her employer because they could not get a good volume-control phone to work with their el-cheapo system. One advantage of the good old days, I guess. So we are grateful to those old-timers. Hope the Pioneers stay active for a long time. Thanks! Bob Zabloudil Opinions strictly my own, of course. ------------------------------ From: carols@world.std.com (Carol Springs) Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell Date: 23 Oct 90 12:03:40 GMT In Vol. 10, Issue 750, Dan Ross quotes from his Wisconsin Bell insert: >Touch-Tone Service >Effective in October, 1990, Wisconsin Bell has eliminated the $1.50 >per month charge for residential touch-tone service. >I ordered Touch-Tone on Thursday, and will have it Friday. I had not >ordered it as a protest against charging extra for something which >(according to what I'd read) was _cheaper_ to provide! Have other >areas eliminated the charge? As of October 19, New England Telephone has *raised* monthly touch-tone from 58 cents to 98 cents. Toll charges within area codes 617 and 508 (eastern Mass.) have been lowered: Distance (miles) First minute Each additional minute Day Evening Night/Wknd Day Even'g Night/Wknd 0-10 0.19 0.124 0.076 0.09 0.059 0.036 11-14 0.26 0.169 0.104 0.12 0.078 0.048 15-up 0.32 0.208 0.128 0.14 0.091 0.056 Various other rate changes have been implemented. These include rate increases for the various classes of service (e.g., an increase of about $3/mo. for basic residential Unlimited Service) and the elimination of the 30 message unit allowance on Measured Service. On the plus side, toll-free local calling has been expanded to include bordering exchanges in all cases. As I understand things, NET had considered charging for 411 directory assistance, but this proved to be a political no-no. Guess where the money is coming from instead? Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 1990 15:33-EDT From: Richard.Lerner@lerner.avalon.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA When you call Directory Assistance in (Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania, after you give the operator the name you want to find, you FIRST get a 15 second or so recording about auto connect (its a $.30 surcharge) and THEN get the number you desired. What a waste of time! They should at least give you the number first. I think that the designers of automated phone systems (and other systems) often forget that peoples' time is of some value. They consider only the most naive users and ignore the effects of the system on "more advanced users". Other examples are phone menus with agonizingly long descriptions of your options in a slow deliberate monotone voice; "If you are calling from a pushbutton phone pleeeze dial 1 to connect you with a sales representative. If you are in need of service or repair, pleeeze dial 2. If you ... If you are dialing from a rotary phone, please hold the line and an operator will assist you." Less socially friendly, but more user-friendly would be: "Push 1 for sales, 2 for repairs, ..., or hold for an operator." My most recent example of poor design was when I called Sprint to be added to their frequent caller program. The number was answered with a phone menu (like the long one above). Having the requisite touch-tone phone, I pushed 1. The machine next asked for my account number. Since I was calling from work, I did not have my number handy and I figured that my name would be sufficient if someone would listen to it. So I waited for a time out... "Please enter your account number now" ... "Please enter your account number now." ... "Please enter your account number now." .... Finally, the machine just hung up!!! I should point out that this number is not Sprint's normal customer service number, but a special number for their frequent caller program (possibly some outside vendor) and when, upon calling back and waiting through their phone menu recording, I finally did speak to an operator, she sounded sincere when she said she would forward my comments to the appropriate people. Rick Lerner (ral+@cs.cmu.edu) School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University End of TELECOM Digest V10 #756 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18719; 24 Oct 90 6:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18349; 24 Oct 90 4:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22953; 24 Oct 90 3:03 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 2:31:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #757 BCC: Message-ID: <9010240231.ab10496@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Oct 90 02:31:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 757 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Jeff Carroll] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Al L. Varney] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John Cowan] Re: Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU [John Cowan] Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [John Higdon] Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Gregory K. Johnson] Re: Ancient ANI [Al L. Varney] Re: Ancient ANI [John Nagle] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Andy Jacobson] Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Date: 23 Oct 90 19:26:42 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <13600@accuvax.nwu.edu> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: >> ... To totally exclude all non-USA citizens who are visiting us from >> receiving credit is one thing -- to issue credit to out of >> country people and not others is illegal. ... PAT >If DISCRIMINATION of foreign nationals based on country of origin is >legal (and I believe it is), then *by definition* they may do >precisely that. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like >on any basis EXCEPT those specifically mentioned by law. The >protection of these laws, when push comes to shove, is most likely >only extended to citizens of the USA. I doubt that this has been tested in court, and I'd bet that the civil rights law says "discrimination against any person...", not "discrimination against any citizen of the United States...". I think it's been demonstrated that this is a gray area in the law. Most likely it would come down to whether PAT or AT&T had the best lawyer :^). Followups to soc.lobotomized.lawyers. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: Well, they would have the best lawyers, I suppose. Anyway, I don't like most lawyers, and agree with Bill Shaekespeare's suggestion for dealing with them -- at least all except the seven who have employed me for a few years now. Or else they work for me, I keep forgetting exactly how we have it arranged. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:11:03 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <13789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > 6) This was a pretty obvious situation; you've got a guy with a > backhoe in open land with a big hole and two broken ends of cable > sticking out. Suppose the work had been done by one of those > horizontal-digging underground-boring machines, putting in a drainage > pipe or something, that chewed through the cable under an undisturbed > surface, and the machine just chomped the cable like it was a tree > root and continued on. No one doing the work might even notice. Now > here you have "n" miles of underground cable, no obvious hole anyhere, > and a break somewhere. With copper wire, you can use time-domain > reflectometry or something like that to get some idea of where to > start looking, but can you do that with fiber optics? Last question first: time-domain reflectometry has it's optical counter- part -- a broken fiber reflects like a bad mirror. Check out the ton of ads in Telephony for fiber trouble-locating equipment. As to non-backhoe fade-inducers, one of my Dad's neighbors had the misfortune of killing a quarter-mile of cable connecting an old previously-independent area with the rest of Southwestern Bell. The scene: A county (gravel) road in a lightly-populated area in Kansas. A recently-regraded ditch parallels the road, with a broken-down fence on the far side of the ditch. Fence needs repair before cows can occupy pasture on far side of fence. The solution: Build a new fence just inside the old one, leaving a couple of feet between fences to allow access to the "road" side of the fence. The problem: When SW Bell bought out the Independent, overhead wire was replaced with underground cable and the cable was trenched inside existing telephone poles (which tended to be directly in line with any existing fence). Since the post holes were dug to a depth about equal to the cable depth, several dozen holes were in place before the auger pulled up a good-sized chunk of cable. Unfortunately, the cable was damaged in so many places the whole distance was re-trenched, inside the new fence. Note that there are (and were) orange poles placed near each intersection of the cable and any public road, with a reminder that telephone cables are buried nearby. Since the affected area has a population of about 70 farms, one church and three businesses, the cable damage provided more coffee break jokes than consternation. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 14:44:05 GMT I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of telemarketing calls. I've never had more than two of them from an undesired source. Call #1 gets interrupted as soon as I figure out what's going on with "I'm sorry I'm not interested in goodbye" *click*, all in one breath. Call #2 gets interrupted with "This call is being recorded and will be reported to the New York City Police Department as an act of telephone harassment do not call again goodbye" *click*. This statement is untrue, but I have never had a callback after that. After all, these people get paid by results, no? The last thing they want is somebody who 1) will not buy and 2) will make trouble. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) [Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine for screening first, etc. Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up). PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:15:30 GMT In article <13757@accuvax.nwu.edu> thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: >I have an AT&T 801c ACU which I have connected to an IBM 37x5 FEP >running bisync protocol. ... >Does anyone know or work with this device? Does anyone know of RS-366 >defines a pause character like the "," which is a Hayes standard for >async modems using the Hayes command set? As I remember (and this was long ago), 801s dial each digit as received. Therefore, pausing is up to you -- you pause by not sending the next digit for a while. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted Date: 23 Oct 90 19:36:25 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 23 at 1:40, TELECOM Moderator and Martin Weiss write: > [On] the collect call issue. Presumably the choice > of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's > the way economics is supposed to work, anyway). If someone is calling > you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you > don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose? > Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are > not quite exact opposites of each other. It is just because this is true that I take a somewhat draconian stance on the problem. I don't accept collect calls. Period. No exceptions. The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking "collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up. Now, while you are staggering hand over heart to your terminal to talk about "emergencies" and "unforseen situations", allow me to give you the view from here. I have not accepted a collect call from ANYONE in about twenty years. In that time, no one has dropped dead, gone hungry, or served time as a result. There is always a way to pre-pay a call, whether it be change in the box, third-number, credit card, etc., etc. If some agency is calling to tell me about a relative or what-have-you, they can prepay the call. A one-minute call from anywhere in the country at the most expensive time of day is under $0.50 (I never said I wouldn't call the person back). The most destitute or cheap individual can afford that. If the only choice is a gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller? To that end, I have collect calls blocked in the Pac*Bell database. This means that a collect attempt within the LATA and a collect attempt within the state via AT&T will fail before it is placed. My personal feeling is that the concept of "collect" is an anachronism. Those who wish to receive collect calls as a "courtesy" to others will just have to accept the risk that accompanies their largess. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Gregory K Johnson Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Organization: Columbia University Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 04:55:09 GMT In article <13930@accuvax.nwu.edu> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >> M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the >> line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ... >Why, then, is it that I don't seem to know any of these "*most*" people? I think music-on-hold performs one valuable function. It indicates to you that you haven't been disconnected (or, as is often the case, it lets you detect when you have been disconnected). Greg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:42:44 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <13899@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > On Oct 21 at 19:05, Peter da Silva writes: > > We get the message. ANI is not CID. Fine. So what is the *external* > > difference between ANI and CID? > Well, yes, there is a considerable difference, ... > [besides] the proper terminology when discussing technical topics ... > Caller-ID is always delivered to an end user. ANI is typically delivered > to a "brother in the cloth" common carrier > ANI is industrial; CID is consumer. Two other differences: 1) ANI can be sent in 7 and 10 digit versions, depending on who's sending/receiving, and identifies the number CHARGED for this part of the call. May not be a valid number or the number actually assigned to the caller. CallerID is (so far) always 10 digits. 2) While the above description doesn't sound like a big difference for most callers, look at a call that involves Call Forwarding. Any ANI sent on the "forwarded" leg of the call identifies the Billing Number of the forwarding station. Any CallerID delivered to the terminating telephone identifies the original calling telephone. Haven't heard anyone say that CallerID can't be used by other than end user. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Date: 23 Oct 90 17:28:24 GMT Caller ID is the delivery vehicle for Automatic Number Identification information to the subscriber. Properly, ANI refers to the original association of called number with physical line performed in the originating central office. Transmission of ANI information via a sender was originally referred to as Automatic Number Forwarding, or ANF, but that terminology is obsolete, and today the term "ANI" includes "ANF". In existing systems, ANI information is delivered to customers in very different ways depending upon whether the customer is a large or small one. With the transition to ISDN, and the availability of a digital signalling channel, the distinction between "Caller ID" and "ANI" will be much reduced, as the same information will be provided to all ISDN customers as a packet on the D channel. The interesting story in the ANI area is how it came to pass that ANI information is forwarded through the switching system, rather than going no further than the originating office. It's a consequence of phone deregulation, which made long distance carriers retail, rather than wholesale, businesses. But enough for now. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 20:49 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? The TPA (Telephone Pioneers of America) runs an excellent museum in San Francisco (140 New Montgomery St., Pac*Bell's head office, and a beautiful old building at that). They have a lot of historical displays, old switchboards, an SxS demo, old and new phones, cable dammage, lots of stuff on Alexander G. Bell, and Mabel, and a gift shop where you can buy lots of Pac*Bell _and_ AT&T trinkets. The museum is staffed by several knowlegeable retired engineers, who keep the exibits in good shape, and love to talk trivia. It is quite something to hear them whistfully expound on the virtues of the old Bell System, and tell Judge Greene jokes. Highly recommended. ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:09:52 GMT In article <13822@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >Isn't there an "in-between" alternative, where the instrument appears >to be dedicated ring-down service, but in reality places the call when >the customer goes off-hook? New York Telephone provides exactly this service for the New York Stock Exchange. If I remember correctly, it's called a Virtual Dedicated Circuit, or something of that sort. It's essentially: 1) a special bit of programming in the CO such that the switch will automatically complete the call rather than extending dial tone, plus 2) some kind of tariff arrangement whereby if the call doesn't complete at least n% of the time you get your money back, where n% is tuneable but large. You pick up the instrument and wait about 2-4 sec, then hear ringing tone. The receiving line can be a POTS line in principle, although it's more typical for it to be another line of the same kind so that either end can call the other just by picking up. I suppose asymmetric solutions might be useful in other contexts. In article <13823@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > When I was a kid growing up in New York (1960's) there were >green boxes on lamp posts containg phones with which you could call >the police. You didn't have to dial, just lift the handset. Anybody >know exactly what these were? Leased ring-down lines from NYTel or >private wires actually owned by the police department? And where did >they ring-down to? The nearest precinct house, or some pre-911 >central location? I don't know where they went then, but as of now they ring the same place 911 does. However, they are a lousy system. Essentially, they are multidrop single circuits, and your call has to wait until all other calls on your particular circuit (potentially a lot of boxes) clear. The word from an acquaintance of mine, a former 911 operator, is "Avoid them. They take longer to get through and they have lower priority because of the high frequency of bogus calls -- take the time to find a payphone" For the non-New Yorker, payphones are very common here, both utility and COCOT; there is close to one per corner even in nlow-rent neighborhoods. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #757 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18733; 25 Oct 90 3:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08763; 25 Oct 90 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23099; 25 Oct 90 1:16 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 0:59:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #758 BCC: Message-ID: <9010250059.ab23603@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Oct 90 00:58:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 758 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Peter G. Capek] Info Needed: Fiber Link to Hawaii - Does it Exist? [Steve Huff] Broken Phone While Out of Town [Ron Heiby] SprintFAX: Persian Gulf Updates [David Dodell] RMI Net [Rupert Mohr] A/A1 Control for Key Telephone Systems [Dennis G. Rears] Odd 800 Behavior [Robert M. Hamer] What Is ACD? (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) [Henry Troup] Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [Asif Taiyabi] Alternate Telephone Service [Jurek Rakoczynski] A "New" Interexchange Carrier [Herman Silbiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 01:02:11 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM The {Wall Stree Journal} of 22 October has a short article headed "Directory Assistance Without Dialing 411". It describes a product offered by PhoneDisc USA Corp, of Warwick, NY, which consists of two CD-ROMs which list 90 million "residential listings" for $1850; quarterly updates are $400 per year (I presume it is the first set of disks which costs $1850). "By contrast, a collection of all the nation's phone books costs about $60,000 and weighs more than 10,000 pounds." The article does not explicitly state whether PhoneDisc has addresses with its listings, and since a CD-Rom is about 560 MB, with 9E9 listings, there's not a lot of room left after the name and the number. Now, here's the bad part: the source for this data is NOT the phone companies, but the databases of direct-marketing companies. This means the data may be as much as 15 months out of date (no explanation offered of where that came from). Also, PhoneDisc does NOT (presently) allow reverse searching (number -> subscriber name). Apparently (someone from Purdue asked about this the other day) NyNex and US West are the only local operating companies that publish their listings on CD-ROM. The October 15 Datamation indicates that the charge for four workstations accessing the US West database for fourteen states with monthly updates is $25K/year. Also, Southwestern Bell is the only company so far that has signed up for AT&T's on-line service. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" Subject: Info Needed: Fiber Link to Hawaii - Does it Exist? Date: 22 Oct 90 22:17:34 CDT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services My roommate and I were discussing the status of communication from the USA to Hawaii and Europe, and I'm in need of assistance. Does a fiber link exist between the US and Hawaii? How 'bout Europe? Thanks ... please e=mail replies. I'll post a f/up if requested. Steve Huff, MBA student, University of Kansas HomeNet: 913 749 4720 Internet: HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Bitnet: HUFF@Ukanvax.Bitnet Don't_hold_your_breath_net: P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS 66044-8225 ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Broken Phone While Out of Town Date: 19 Oct 90 20:09:45 GMT Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL Last night, I returned from a two-day business trip, and one of the scariest nights of my life. I was in Dallas, TX. My home is in a Northwest suburb of Chicago, IL. Unbeknownst to me, an IBT installer had broken a wire on the pair leading to my home's unlisted number (the one we answer). I had made specific arrangements with my wife for her to be home by about 7pm. I tried calling at 7:15, 8:15, 11:10, 12:00, and 12:30. Each time, ring-no-answer. I tried my voice-mail system several times. I tried her sister. I tried her employer. I tried our Health Maintenance Organization and Hospital. I tried the police department for the town where she works (in a chemical laboratory). I finally found out that all was well when the police in my community sent a black and white over to my home and determined that she was fine. Throughout this period, I figured that there probably was nothing wrong with my phone as A) I was getting ring signalling, and B) My modem on my published number answered. I didn't know at the time about the massive cable cut in the western suburbs. It seems not to have affected my area, anyway. I figured that since my modem answered, a cable cut was unlikely. Further, I figured that since there was ring, a call to IBT repair was apt to get me nowhere. Once I found out (from my home town police) that my home phone was out of order, I figured that I'd report it to IBT repair, in case my wife didn't think to use the modem line to do so. Here's where things started getting really interesting. I, not knowing how to reach IBT repair, called 708 DA and asked them. They told me to dial "611". I explained that I was standing in DFW international airport in Texas. (I was waiting for an associate's plane to arrive.) The DA operator said there was no listing for repair, but could give me the main number in downtown Chicago. I called that number and asked to be connected to Repair. I was told that since it was after hours, they couldn't connect me. They told me to dial "611". I explained that I was in Texas and that I didn't think that dialing "611" would get me IBT repair. The person in the Chicago office then told me to "just dial '0' for Operator and have her connect you with IBT's 611". I expressed my doubts, but she assured me that that was the way to do it. So, I called the local (GTE) operator and asked to be connected with IBT repair service. The operator was shocked to receive such a request and told me that she could not do so, that Chicago IBT was mistaken in thinking that she could. I then called the Chicago IBT office back and spoke with someone else, explained the whole sequence, and received another phone number in 312 which (she said) would connect me directly with IBT repair. I dialed it and got nothing but some "click-clack" noises with about a 1 per second frequency for about 20 seconds, then silence. I called the AT&T (my LD carrier) operator and reported this event. She tried placing the call and got the same noise. She contacted another operator, I presume near Chicago, who also tried it. Same noises. The two AT&T operators probably spent 5-10 minutes trying to get me connected to IBT Repair. Finally, I had no option but to give up. When I reached my wife at work the next day, I asked her to deal with it (she hates that kind of thing). Well, my phone is fixed, now. I guess I know that next time I want to report a phone out of order somewhere other than where I'm standing I should write a letter! Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod Moderator's Note: Here in 312/708 (except Centel) 611 translates into a seven digit number: 312-I forget the rest. David T, can you reply? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 22:19:52 mst From: David Dodell Subject: SprintFAX: Persian Gulf Updates Sprint has been running a free FAX service to distribute hourly updates of news of the Persian Gulf situation. By calling 1-800-676-2255, and punching in your FAX number, you will be shortly receive a one page summary of the news items for the hour. The updates are done hourly between 8 am to 8 pm EDT Monday through Friday. David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ From: INFOAC-Operator Subject: RMI Net Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 16:25:54 MET RMI Net is a commercial AND Research Network. Adressing is simply Internet straightforward. user@{host}.rmi.de hosts are: infoac The Gateway and INFO.box Aachen (Research Information Exchange) (ISDN, X25) infohh Commercial INFO.box Hamburg (Ventura Publisher Group, other: scientific: GI (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik) infofl Commercial INFO.box Flensburg (PageMaker Group etc) rmi Gateway to Telex, FAX etc. infodn Ham Radio System in Dueren dl3no Ham Radio System in Aachen msn Mailbox System in Nuernberg mms2 Music Mail Service Hamburg ccb Mailbox Bremen dsv1 beeing connected {others} confidential Connected to InterEUnet via [192.33.254.1]. Every System has a correct Postmaster address. Network Information via Postmaster@infoac.rmi.de. Regards, Rupert Mohr uucp: rmohr@infoac.rmi.de rmohr@unido.bitnet cis 72446,415 Fax 49 241 32822 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 12:05:50 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone systems? Also what is a 1A2 key system? A reference would aalso be good. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 13:23 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Odd 800 Behavior Upon dialing 800-xxx-xxxx, which is supposed to access a New Orleans Bread and Breakfast service, the following odd behavior occurred: 1. After I dialed, I got about 11 seconds of dial tone. 2. Then, about 1 second of ringback. 3. Then, the following recording: "Operator NR5. Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please try your call again or call your customer relations representative for further assistance. This is Operator NR5." 4. The recording would repeat once, and then I would hear what sounded like a reorder tone. Further experimentation, i.e., calling several times so that I could get the recording down verbatim, elicited the following variations: a. The ringback at step 2 varied from perhaps 1 to 3 seconds. b. The recording would sometimes cut off in the middle of its second repeat before going to the reorder tone. And of course, my use of dial tone, ringback, reorder tone should be construed to mean that they sounded like those to me. Anyone know (a) what LD company 800-xxx is, and (b) why a dial tone after the dial and before the ringback, and (c) in general, any guesses as to what is going on? [Moderator's Note: Blame me for the 'xxx' entries above where the actual number was printed when the message arrived. What I found was that the number is not a 'bed and breakfast service' but is actually a gateway or dialup to some company's private internal network. The dial tone you heard was the internal dialtone from the company switch. Had you experimented further, you would have found that punching various buttons on your touch tone phone would have *broken* the dial tone and connected you internally. Some of the dialable combinations in fact were outgoing WATS lines, FX lines (themselves extending new dial tone from somewhere far away), etc. You apparently were expecting something else, and thus overlooked the obvious answer to why would a line be answered by extending dial tone. I am being purposely vague, and hope you understand why I'm not going to print the number here so that 30,000+ readers can try it out Thursday and Friday. Re the 'bed and breakfast service', I guess they must have some other number, unless they are out of business, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 90 11:04:00 EDT From: Henry Troup Subject: What Is ACD? (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) fozzie!stanley@uu.psi.com (John Stanley) writes: > Now, it seems to me that an ACD with ONE entry in the menu is I thought that ACD was Automatic Call Direction (now superseded by UCD, Universal Call Direction) which distributed calls between a number of agents (people), not a voice mail system. In Northern Telecom's Practice 297-1001-125 (an obsolete edition only), I find: Digital Switching System DMS*-100 Family Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ACD: Automatic Call Distribution Automatic Call Distribution: A set of Meridian Digital Centrex features that assigns answering machine priorities to incoming calls, and then queues and distributes them to a predetermined group of telephone sets designated as answering positions. I don't know a TLA for voice menu systems - do we need one? *DMS is a trademark of Northern Telecom. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Some material is copy uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | right (c) Northern | Telecom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 1990 17:11 EDT From: Asif Taiyabi Subject: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens Organization: Management Systems Laboratory Since there was a posting some time back whether Non U.S citizens could be denied credit legally, I am posting the information I received on one of the Universal Card brochures -- And I quote: "The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a contract ); because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Federal agency that administers compliance with this law concerning Universal Bank is the Regional Director, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Marquis One Tower, 245 Peachtree Center Avenue N.E. Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303" Sorry No E-mail address provided :-) at/.. ------------------------------ From: Jurek Rakoczynski Subject: Alternate Telephone Service Date: 22 Oct 90 19:39:20 GMT Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service supplier'. I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a (cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was planning to provide alternate phone service in competion with the local telco. This was in addition to other services available on the fiber. I don't remember where I read this, but I am not confusing this with just running fiber to the homes, like in California. I remember the term 'Alternate Telephone Service' or something like that. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 21:01:05 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: A "New" Interexchange Carrier Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I received today in the US mail a slick brochure advertizing the Working Assets Long Distance, an exclusive service of the Working Assets Funding Service. It is "a fiber-optic long distance service that helps you save forests, animals, rivers, and children - just by talking on the telephone." There is no added cost to the user -- over the rates of US Sprint. The pitch is that one percent of the charges will go to non-profit groups that defend the environment. Further quote " Now, helping our planet is not only cost-free, it's absurdly easy. There is nothing to lose. Just fill out the card..." which is addressed to Working Assets Long Distance. Then there is the small print, which says that signing the attached cards authorizes them to switch you to Sprint as the primary long distance carrier. Your local phone company may charge $5 to do this. To offset the charge, US Sprint will give you a 30 minute free calling credit at the night and weekend rate, after your third full month of service. This certainly is a novel way for Sprint to sell their services. Herman Silbiger Any opinions expressed in the above postings are my own. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #758 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10593; 26 Oct 90 0:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31106; 25 Oct 90 22:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04580; 25 Oct 90 21:25 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:19:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #759 BCC: Message-ID: <9010252119.ab30191@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:19:29 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 759 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Build Your Own Playphone [Jurek Rakoczynski] Telecom in the News, Part 1 [croll@wonder.enet.dec.com] Least Cost Routing [Jeff Sicherman] MCI and Cubic Zirconia? [Brendan Kehoe] What's Going On Here? [Dave Levenson] Graybar Catalog [Ken Jongsma] Recording Calling Recording? [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurek Rakoczynski Subject: Build Your Own Playphone Date: 22 Oct 90 19:34:31 GMT Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ A few weeks back, I read where someone was looking for an inexpensive phone system for the home (play phone for the kids, etc.). It reminded me of something I built when I lived in a condo. The neighbors and my wife would talk on the *real* phone quite a bit, so I decided to become an Alternate Telephone Service supplier. I built a private telephone system between us (we had a common wall between us). It's very simple to build with only a few inexpensive components. How it works: The +Tip (Grn) and -Ring (Red) lead of the telephones are tied in series with astandard 9v (transitor) battery. More than enough power for most/all phones. The sound is so clear you can here a pin drop. :-) The calling party signals the called party by closing a switch that operates in series with a battery (Grn or Red lead), one of the Yel/Blk leads, a buzzer at the called parties phone and to the other side of the battery. One picture (200+ ASCII characters) is worth a 1000 words so heres the ASCII picture: your house <= | => other house ^ demarkation point - it's the law :-) +-BATT-+ | + +---+ G | G |+---+ ------+-------- |G. | ------------+ +| .G| --------+------ | | | R R | | | To ------|-------- |R. | ------------------- | .R| --------|------ To Phone | | | Y B | | | Phone --+---|-------- |Y. | --------\ /-------- | .Y| --------|---+-- | | | | B X Y | | | | --|---|---+---- |B. | --------/ \-------- | .B| ----+---|---|-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ 4 Cond Ca. +---+ | | | | | | Wall Jack Wall Jack | | | | | | | | | +-/-+-O-+ +-O-+-/-+ S1 PB1 PB1 S1 Legend Material List . = Wire Terminal in Wall Jack 2-S1 Momentary On SPST Push button G = Green switch - mini R = Red 1-B1 9V transistor battery & Y = Yellow snap on connector B = Black 2-PB1 Piezo buzzer, operate on less + = wire splice then 7V. 2-Wall jacks 2-Telephones + cord to wall jack 1 length 4 conductor cable To clarify the picture: 1. The battery is in series with the Grn lead. Power to S1/PB1 comes directly from the battery. The polarity of the battery usually will not matter unless you have a polarity sensitive phone. Then swap the R/G leads and keep trying. You could located the battery in either the Red or Green lead. I just picked green for convenience of the picture. 2. There is a cross-over in the Y/B leads between the wall jacks to keep the termination of S1/PB1 the same on both ends. It makes it easier. When I originally built this, I mounted the buzzer and battery on the wall jack, and the switch on the phone (by drilling a hole in the phone). You could try mounting the switch and buzzer: 1. both in the phone, or 2. both on an external box with a seperate lead into the phone, or 3. both on an external box that interfaces between the wall jack and phone so you don't have to modify the phones. It worked for 1.5 years on the original battery before I moved and it was still going strong - like that bunny :-). If you have any questions, you can try sending me mail, but I not sure how to email out of here. I guess I should learn. First time poster: Standard apologies apply for header errors, etc.. No .sig yet. Standard disclaimers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:49:47 PDT From: Subject: Telecom in the News, Part 1 TELEPHONE SERVICES: A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID' Keith Bradsher, {The New York Times}, Sunday, October 21, 1990 (Business section, page 5) Americans who make international telephone calls are paying extra to subsidize foreign countries' postal rates, local phone service, even schools and armies. These subsidies are included in quarterly payments that American telephone companies must make to their counterparts overseas, most of these are state-owned monopolies. The net payments, totaling $2.4 billion last year, form one of the fastest-growing pieces of the American trade deficit, and prompted the Federal communications Commission this summer to begin an effort that could push down the price that consumers pay for an international phone call by up to 50 percent within three years. The imbalance is a largely unforeseen side effect of the growth of competition in the American long-distance industry during the 1980's. The competition drove down outbound rates from the United States, while overseas monopolies kept their rates high. The result is that business and families spread among countries try to make sure that calls originate in the United States. Outbound calls from the United States now outnumber inbound calls by 1.7-to-1, in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for the surplus calls. The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the payments American carriers make. Central and South American countries filed formal protests against the F.C.C.'s plan on Oct. 12. Although developed countries like Britain and Japan account for more than half of United States international telephone traffic, some of the largest imbalances in traffic are with developing countries, which spend the foreign exchange on everything from school systems to weapons. The deficit with Columbia, for example, soared to $71 million last year. International charges are based on formulas assigning per-minute costs of receiving and overseas call and routing it within the home country. But while actual costs have dropped in recent years, the formulas have been very slow to adjust, if they are adjusted at all. For example, while few international calls require operators, the formulas are still based on such expenses. Furthermore, the investment required for each telephone line in an undersea cable or aboard a satellite has plummeted with technological advances. A trans-Pacific cable with 600,000 lines, announced last Wednesday and scheduled to go into service in 1996, could cost less than $1,000 per line. Yet the phone company formulas keep charges high. Germany's Deutsche Bundespost, for example, currently collects 87 cents a minute from American carriers, which actually lose money on some of the off-peak rates they offer American consumers. MORE CALLS FROM THE U.S. ARE GENERATING A GROWING TRADE DEFICIT U.S. telephone companies charge less for 1980 0.3 (billions of overseas calls than foreign companies 1981 0.5 U.S. dollars) charge for calls the United States. So 1982 0.7 more international calls originate in the 1983 1.0 United States. But the U.S. companies pay 1984 1.2 high fees to their foreign counterparts for 1985 1.1 handling those extra calls, and the deficit 1986 1.4 has ballooned in the last decade. 1987 1.7 1988 2.0 1989 2.4 (estimate) (Source: F.C.C.) THE LONG DISTANCE USAGE IMBALANCE Outgoing and incoming U.S. telephone traffic, in 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, in percent. Whom are we calling? Who's calling us? Total outgoing traffic: Total incoming traffic: 5,325 million minutes 3,155 million minutes Other: 47.9% Other: 32.9% Canada: 20.2% Canada: 35.2% Britain: 9.1% Britain: 12.6% Mexico: 8.8% Mexico: 6.2% W. Germany: 6.9% W. Germany: 5.4% Japan: 4.4% Japan: 4.3% France: 2.7% France: 3.4% (Source: International Institute of Communications) COMPARING COSTS: Price range of five-minute international calls between the U.S. and other nations. Figures do not include volume discounts. Country From U.S.* To U.S. Britain $2.95 to $5.20 $4.63 to $6.58 Canada (NYC to $0.90 to $2.25 $1.35 to $2.26 Montreal) France $3.10 to $5.95 $4.72 to $7.73 Japan $4.00 to $8.01 $4.67 to $8.34 Mexico (NYC to $4.50 to $7.41 $4.24 to $6.36 Mexico City) West Germany $3.10 to $6.13 $10.22 * For lowest rates, callers pay a monthly $3 fee. (Source: A.T.&T.) WHERE THE DEFICIT FALLS: Leading nations with which the United States has a trade deficit in telephone services, in 1989, in millions of dollars. Mexico: $534 W. Germany: 167 Philippines: 115 South Korea: 112 Japan: 79 Dominican Republic: 75 Columbia: 71 Italy: 70 (Source: F.C.C.) Israel: 57 Britain: 46 THE RUSH TOWARD LOWER COSTS: The cost per telephone line for laying each of the eight telephone cables that now span the Atlantic Ocean, from the one in 1956, which held 48 lines, to the planned 1992 cable which is expected to carry 80,000 lines. In current dollars. 1956 $557,000 1959 436,000 1963 289,000 1965 365,000 1970 49,000 1976 25,000 1983 23,000 (Source, F.C.C.) 1988 9,000 1992 5,400 (estimate) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 03:18:52 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Least Cost Routing Is there a regulatory reason why the local companies couldn't provide a 'least cost' routing service for long-distance calls, where they select the company with the cheapest rates for a given call from rate information they have in a database ? Couldn't they charge for such as service ? Expecting consumers to keep up with rate complexity and changes seems to me to somewhat discourage *real* competition (except for knowledgeable high volume accounts) on price and instead encourage the silly and often misleading commercials and slamming activity. Or is there some self-interest reason why the local companies wouldn't want to do this ? Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: MCI and Cubic Zirconia? Date: 24 Oct 90 11:24:58 GMT Reply-To: Brendan Kehoe Organization: University of Pennsylvania There I was, losing in a battle of insomnia, so I decided to flip around the ol' tube to see if there was anything on at 2:30am other than those "Call me, I'm waiting to ..." 900 ads splattered all over the place. Lo and behold, on the Home Shopping Club, there's an ad enticing members (and non-members, it's easy to join, just ..) to sign up for MCI and get $10 in Spendable Ka$h to boot. So MCI's got a contract with them now? Interesting way to drum up business -- I can imagine those thousands (millions? nah, I have more faith in America, don't know why, but I do) of people dialing up and changing their long distance service the same time they get that really GREAT cubic zirconia 94 caret ring (with gold inlay in a custom setting). Kinda strange, isn't it? Brendan Kehoe | Soon: brendan@cs.widener.edu [ Sometime this week ... pray! ] For now: kehoe@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu | Also: brendan.kehoe@cyber.widener.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: What's Going On Here? Date: 24 Oct 90 22:25:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA While on vacation in Santa Fe, NM, last week, I tried to use my host's telephone to place a calling-card call. When I dialed 10222+0+10D, I got a recording indicating that a "It is not necessary to select a long distance carrier for this call." I was trying to call NJ, approximately 2,000 miles away. I somehow doubt that it was an intra-LATA call! I tried 10333 and got the same recording. With no carrier-select code, the call was processed normally, by AT&T. It appears that the local switch is set up for equal access, but that two of the three major carriers are not represented in Santa Fe. Does anybody know if this is the case? The phone I was using is served by Mountain Bell, of US West Communications. The number is in the 505-983- group. The switch sounded like some kind of ESS, but I didn't try to identify its type. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Graybar Catalog Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 17:52:54 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I wonder if our Moderator copyrighted the name Telecom Digest? In any case, I received a copy of the Graybar Telecom Digest in the mail today. It is similar in size to the Hello Direct catalog, but does not list prices or discount schedules. Some interesting goodies: - PBX's, Answering Machines, Cordless Telephones - Key Systems (including POETS) - Rugged Phones, Explosion Proof Phones - Inmate Service Phones (!), Emergency Service Phones - Vandal Resistant Phones, Handsets of all types - Backup Power Units - SMDR Call Accounting Systems - Voice Mail Systems - Paging Systems, FAX Machines - Distinctive Ring Switching Systems, Remote Service Units - CO Simulator, Butt Sets, Automatic Intercept Systems - Digit Grabbers, Jacks, Headsets An interesting catalog. I wish they would at least print retail proces though. If you would like a copy, it looks like you'll need to look up your local Graybar office in the white pages. They do not appear to have a national number. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 12:42:08 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Recording Calling Recording? In TELECOM Digest, vol. 10, issue 736: David A Smallberg writes about local high school having a computer which apparently calls students' parents every Saturday afternoon with taped information regarding the school for the following week. He writes: >Of course, the first part of the message talks through answering >machines' outgoing messages. In other words, a lot of parents aren't home when that computer call is made, and the recorded message encounters a recording at the receiving end, and the receiving end gets the incoming recording minus the beginning (and minus any overflow at the end). How common is the problem of recording-calling-a-recording, anyway? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #759 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11355; 26 Oct 90 1:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20649; 25 Oct 90 23:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31106; 25 Oct 90 22:31 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:02:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #760 BCC: Message-ID: <9010252202.ab07492@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:02:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 760 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom in the News, Part 2 [croll@wonder.enet.dec.com] The Answering Service Bummer [John Higdon] Alex Videotext Service -- An Update [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 16:29:00 PDT From: Subject: Telecom in the News, Part 2 CRY AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF VOICE MAIL Michael Schrage, Los Angeles Times Syndicate; Published in {The Boston Sunday Globe}, October 21, 1990, page A2. Watson! Come quickly! I need you! "The party you are trying to reach -- Thomas Watson -- is unavailable at this time. To leave a message, please wait for the beep. When you are finished with the message, press the pound sign. To review your message, press 7. To change your message after reviewing it, press 4. To add to your message, press 5. To reach another party, press the star sign and enter the four digit extension. To listen to Muzak, press 23. To transfer out of phone mail in what I promise you will be a futile effort to reach a human, press 0 -- because we treat you like one." Who hasn't made a perfectly innocent phone call to an organization only to be ensnared in a hideous Roach Motel of a voice mail system? No matter if you call a Fortune 500 behemoth or the local mall, the odds are increasing that you will listen to a machine before you talk with a human. In 1985, barely a thousand corporate voice mail systems were sold in the United States. By the end of this year, the industry expects to sell more than 30,000 systems. Depending upon their designs, you might never talk with a human -- no matter how desperately you'd like to. So ask not for whom the voice mail networks, it networks for thee. "Based on my personal experience, five percent of these systems are superbly designed, 20 percent are poorly to abysmally designed, and the rest fall in between," says sociologist James E. Katz, who studies the human impact of telecommunications systems for Bellcore, the research arm of the regional Bell operating companies. What superb voice mail design means, of course, is in the ear of the holder. Some people would rather chat with a machine that won't interrupt than with the human that almost certainly will. Some people would rather dictate their thoughts; others want the comfort and courtesy of a voice that's not prerecorded. But that's not the real question. Far more interesting is what these systems say about the organizations that use them. Just as the design of the office or a tacit employee dress code speaks volumes about an organization's culture, so do the telecommunications networks it offers to the outside world. The well-designed system conveys a pleasant blend of efficiency and warmth. The "technobnoxiousnetwork" reveals the mix of self-importance and incompetence that permeates too many companies. The new technology rewrites telephone etiquette even as is it generates new frontiers of rudeness. You might believe that the secretary lost the message; you're skeptical if they say the voice mail system crashed. The network becomes as much a crutch as a communications tool. Come on! Are you really always in meetings or are you using voice mail as a shield to deflect the unexpected call? Voice mail creates new classes of interaction in the professional world. (It also creates the ominous specter of voice mail hackers -- telephone intruders who break into systems to eavesdrop on messages or surreptitiously plant them.) While many of these new classes are a boon to organization effectiveness, they can also signal a subtle but insulting contempt of outsiders. The irony here is that voice mail is one of those rare technologies that made the reverse migration from the home to the office. For all their initial awkwardness, answering machines were designed to make life easier for all parties concerned. The overwhelming reason why most companies buy voice mail systems isn't to make life better for people calling in, but rather to make intra-company communications more efficient at lower cost. "What we're seeing is the hollowing of the organization social system," says Rensselaer Polytechnic's Langdon Winner, author of "Autonomous Technology," an influential critique of technological innovation. "Instead of complementing the way people communicate in organizations, the technology is designed to replace it." That, says Winner, creates a very different kind of social system -- one where people would rather transfer you to the technology than deal with you themselves. Why? Because that is the value that the organization is trying to reinforce. "I think it's regrettable that so many organizations fail to adequately consider the needs of the customers when they install these systems," says Bellcore's Katz. "They mainly consider the internal needs of the company so outsiders get turned off to the whole experience when the call in and try to talk to someone." While becoming "lean and mean" is a touchstone of American management these days, I'm not certain that all this leanness and meanness was supposed to be inflicted on the organization's customers. Indeed, voice mail illustrates one of the seeming paradoxes of business practice: How do you become more cost-effective while, at the same time, offering customers greater value and better service? Sure, technology is supposed to give you both -- but only if it is designed and implemented with care and thought. The nasty implicit message embedded in most voice mail systems is: "We're too busy to have anyone talk with you. Let us treat you like a data entry device and don't forget to press the pound key after you shut up. If we have the time, we may even get back to you." I don't think there's much question that most voice mail systems do an excellent job of coordinating internal communications and boosting group productivity. But does it come at the price of alienating potential customers? Professionally, I like the ease and versatility that voice mail offers -- when I'm using it. Personally, I'm sick and tired of playing telephone tag with machines instead of people. The poor quality of so many voice mail systems underscores one of the most painful truths of technology: We would rather use these new media to make life easier for ourselves than to make it easier for others. In the short run, that may make us more "productive." In the longer run, what we'll discover is that people would rather not call us any more. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: The Answering Service Bummer Date: 25 Oct 90 14:10:19 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Recently, I purchased some microwave (950 Mhz) gear from my friendly local broadcast distributor. While installing it, some major problems turned up, all of which were caused by carelessness on the part of the manufacturer. The result was a wasted six hours between midnight and 6AM, since the old equipment had to be reinstalled. Since the distributor effectively represents the manufacturer, I gave him a call to express my displeasure. After dialing the number, I heard it forward to a DID system, where it rang and rang. Finally, it answered with a recording: "Thank you for calling. Please stay on the line and the first available operator will process your call." To my way of thinking, this is a new low in answering services -- and an interesting way to understaff the facility without having people give up on unanswered calls. Anyway, I waited about 2-3 minutes for someone to "process" my call. "Good morning, XYX, may I help you?" "Yes, I would like to speak to Ferd Nerd." "I'm sorry, he's out of the office. Could I have your name and number?" At that point, I not only wanted to let him know that I called, but that I was ripping mad. So, after leaving my name and number I asked if I could leave a short message. After much hemming and hawing, the "operator" reluctantly agreed. I left a one-liner and had to say it one word at a time, frequently having to repeat myself. When I speak to Mr. Nerd again, I'm going to suggest a machine or voice mail. The five minutes I wasted with his service could have been spent conveying a REAL message that he could have started working on without having to call back and wake me up. As it was, with his callback and all, I've had no sleep. Answering services can join the growing list of telephone anachronisms. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Alex Videotext Service -- An Update Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 23:54:08 EDT [The following material was found in the October 1990 edition of _Toronto_Computes!_, a monthly microcomputer-related newspaper. The following excerpts from _Toronto_Computes!_ are with respect to the Bell Canada Alex videotext service which started in Toronto this spring, and has been in Montreal for some time before that. The contents (other than any notes I make) are copyrighted, but staff at ConText advised me that this material may be reproduced on a non-commercial basis. In other words, don't publish this in _Byte_ or _Dr_Dobb's_ without clearing it with ConText first. As long as the material contains the copyright and source statements and is not subjected to mutilation, it should be permissible to distribute this wherever Telecom Digest goes. Note that phone numbers and other references are with respect to Toronto (+1 416) ---- djcl ] _Toronto_Computes!_ is published by ConText Publishing Inc., 60 St Clair Ave W, Suite 1, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1M7. Telephone (416) 925.4533 for editorial and advertising offices. Fax 925.7701. (c) 1990 by ConText Publishing Inc. - reprinted by permission ================================================ [FROM LETTERS SECTION] ================================================ ALEX USERS ARE SHOCKED BY GIGANTIC PHONE BILLS Re Alex gets mixed reviews by Jens Kohler (August 1990): I read with interest the article on Alex. But I was disappointed at the last sentence because it suggests that the author missed a very important issue. The author stated that each month users pay about $50 in addition to the $7.95. I wish it were so! In reality, those users that have found something of interest in Alex are soon shocked by their telephone bill. Furthermore, some service providers have rigged their services to maximize on-line time. As a consequence, many users have discontinued Alex after their first phone bill. Those with PCs rather than Alex terminals have exchanged Alex for BBS. Since the Alex software is distributed free, Bell Canada likely does not have up-to-date statistics on how many users are no longer calling Alex. My own experience with Alex software on a Compaq DiskPro 386 covers the month of July. I incurred a phone bill of $345 in Alex charges in the process of testing out all their services. Many services identified as French/English in the July Alex booklet were in fact French only (wasted $$ time). Several services listed were not connected. Others were trivial advertising. Services at Alex rate-categories 1 and 2 were generally not in service or were simple corporate advertisements with no significant reason for on-line interaction with users. The lone exception was Alex 1 for which the Bell Canada white pages provided some justification. But it cost me $1.72 in computer time to find that my phone number and those of my local relatives were not listed, at least not in a manner that a quick database search could locate. Alex services at rate-categories 3, 4 and 5 were largely "future" or else represented bonus discount rates charged to heavy users of categories 6 and 7. This left categories 6 and 7 as the most useful of services. At $0.20 or $0.25 per minute, and extensive introductory graphics, these services are prohibitively expensive. The chat lines are the most attractive for Alex buffs. But conversations with heavy users taught me the danger of Alex. Several users indicated they were suffering phone bills in excess of $1,000 per month due the chat lines. One poor chap rang up a $2,000 bill in one month (!?!?) and had to take out a bank loan to cover his obligations to Bell. He shrugged it off as an investment that will pay for itself if he meets the right girl on Alex. Unfortunately, that is unlikely since the ratio of males to females on Alex is very high. Furthermore, to make matters worse, many of the females on the chat limes are "plants". That is, the service provider has paid operators who "chat" with unsuspecting users. This of course contributes to an inflated phone bill. The use of Alex can be addictive; the colour graphics on a EGA monitor are impressive, much better that on the boring monochrome Alex terminals. The information services have great future potential but are premature. Bill paying services have not yet connected to enough banks and stores to make it practical. Databases for serious professionals are lacking. For example, the literature search facility of the National Research Council (CISTI: Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information) is not available. The real attraction is the electronic community chatter. But sooner or later, the Alex addict has to be cured from this financial disease. The cure, of course, consists of the free BBS services which can be reached using the Alex terminal. For $7.95 it's a good toy to computer illiterates, but cannot download or print files. Dieter Birk Oakville ================================================ [commentary from djcl/woody: the "white pages" service mentioned is actually not an "Alex 1" level service as mentioned above; Alex 1 is a toll-free level to users. The "white pages" are charged equivalent to "Alex 3" which means the first three minutes of the connection are free, but each subsequent minute is charged 10c (presumably the $1.72 figure mentioned includes tax). The "white pages" service from what I recall of the tariffs are actually listed as one category of service and Alex 3 is listed as a separate category although both incur the same charges. My apologies as I don't have the referred-to August 1990 article offhand ... djcl] ================================================ BBS BEAT: SAVE BBSING DOLLARS BY USING ALEX BOX By JAMES MACFARLANE Bell's Alex, which provides services similar to BBSs, is very expensive, costing up to $15 an hour. But a growing group of people are discovering they can use their inexpensive rented terminals to call directly to any local BBS, free of charge. James Gooding, previous Alex user and now sysop of Alex Anonymous BBS, has found there's an incredible demand for his unique BBS. "My board is designed to be the first BBS Alex users start off using. I don't actively advertise the board. It just travels by word of mouth through messages on various Alex services. Once a lot of the Alex users discover there are alternatives, we will experience a boom in BBSing." Gooding says Alex users are quite different from the BBS crowd. "Most of them aren't interested in computers themselves, but are very excited by being able to send messages back and forth to other people. I want to help people make the transition from Alex to using BBSs." Alex terminals are available from Bell Phonecentres for about $9 a month. The 1200-baud dumb terminals provide a great alternative for anyone wanting to get into BBSing without spending large amounts of cash on a computer. You can reach Alex Anonymous at 229-9232. Any sysops who want to support Alex users should set their boards to accept callers using 7E1. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #760 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12296; 26 Oct 90 2:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04822; 26 Oct 90 0:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20649; 25 Oct 90 23:34 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:38:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #761 BCC: Message-ID: <9010252238.ab11215@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:38:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 761 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Mercury Marketing Again [David Pletcher] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John Higdon] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Craig R. Watkins] Re: "Slamming" Term [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Toby Nixon] Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Tom Gray] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Dave Levenson] Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Gordon D. Woods] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [D. Faunt] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Wm. Randolph Franklin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Pletcher Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 24 Oct 90 19:06:28 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 In article <13946@accuvax.nwu.edu> cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 757, Message 3 of 10 >I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of >telemarketing calls. I've never had more than two of them from an >undesired source. >[Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by >the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who >apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter >one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers >are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are >never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine >for screening first, etc. Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up). PAT] I don't know whether avoiding telemarketers and other unsolicited calls merits some of the extreme measures that other readers use, but I think that the two of you are forgetting the major reason that telemarketers are a nuisance. It is not that it is difficult to disengage one once I pick up the phone, but merely that answering the phone is often a great inconvenience. Many times I have been in the shower, or eating dinner, or doing something else I don't want to have interrupted when the phone rings. So when I pick up the phone after having jumped out of the shower and run down the hallway, dripping everyhere, I am not amused to hear an automated announcement soliciting a piano tuning service (especially since I don't have a piano). When the phone rings, I assume it is because someone has something marginally important, or at least interesting, to say; thus I drop what I am doing to answer the phone. That is why I do not appreciate being interrupted by junk phone calls. David Pletcher dpletche@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 24 Oct 90 20:43:58 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon John Cowan writes: > I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of > telemarketing calls. I've never had more than two of them from an > undesired source. But your techniques wouldn't work with the Merky News. They pay no attention to whom they call on either a short or long term basis. The numbers are dialed by a machine and then passed to a boiler room operator. Even if you threatened to boil the caller in oil, you could find the same person calling you back the next evening -- and it wouldn't be his fault! The system doesn't care about your response, it doesn't care whether you already subscribe, and it doesn't care if you are a Trailblazer; it will call you back over and over again. > [Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by > the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who > apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter > one on the phone and have to say no... I have no trouble telling telemarketers where they can go and what they can do. Where I draw the line is when the same one calls back three and four times a week, week after week, going sequentially down my ten lines EACH TIME. Please do not trivialize the offensiveness of the Merky telemarketing. I regularly turn down the Police Athletic League, the Fund for Homeless Furniture Makers, endless investment "opportunities", MCI LD offers, etc. The list is endless. BUT ... 1) These groups and salespeople take "no" for an answer and don't call back for at least a couple of months, and ... 2) they don't scan down sequentially, turning a minor inconvenience into a major annoyance. The Merky News telemarketing system is possibly the most offensive and irritating abomination ever concocted in the world of telephony (short of GTE and COCOTs, of course). There is no defense against it other than direct legal threats to those in charge. This has worked quite nicely, but for now only those with 723 prefixes are safe :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 25 Oct 90 09:46:46 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13946@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I have no trouble saying no. In addition, mxy primary line is published. For some reason or another (maybe small town) I don't have a BIG problem with telemarketers. However, I can seriously sympathize with those that do because of at least one problem: sleep. If one doesn't sleep the same hours as telemarketers, "just saying no" can be quite a problem. If I was losing sleep over the problem, you can bet I would start dreaming up gizmos to help me out. 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: 24-OCT-1990 00:27:48.83 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: "Slamming" Term Hi- I saw in {The New York Times} (Thurs, Oct. 18, 1990) that AT&T accused MCI of "slamming" over 90,000 AT&T customers. It further said that these were only the customers who informed AT&T that they had been "slammed", and that there were potentially many more who didn't even realize it. In response, MCI vice president Eugene Eidenberg stated: "Let me state emphatically that the frequency of unauthorized switching has been grossly exaggererated by AT&T." (Uh huh...SURE it has! :-) ) So AT&T seems to use the word "slamming", and MCI prefers the term "switching" ... I wonder why??? ;-) I think I'll stick with AT&T's terminology... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 24 Oct 90 01:25:03 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <13889@accuvax.nwu.edu>, vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: > You as the caller couldn't and shouldn't be able too. But that gives > rise to the question: can you turn call waiting off on an existing > call? > I just tried it: I flashed and dialed *70 got the three beeps and was > cut through to the existing call. So if you had some control over It is a fairly well-known and well-documented feature that if you have BOTH Three-Way Calling and Call-Waiting that you can disable Call Waiting by doing a hook-flash, *70. Several people (e.g., those who run a BBS part-time on their voice line) have ask me over the years how they can selectively disable call waiting on INCOMING calls. It's pretty easy. You need Three-Way Calling, and take advantage of the feature mentioned above. Rather than having the modem auto-answer (S0 > 0), you need to have computer-controlled answering (look for RING messages). AND, rather than answering with the "ATA" command, you answer with a dial string that looks like this: "ATH1DT,!,*70,;A"; you might need another "!" before the ";" to make it work on your switch. The "H1" takes you off-hook, so that the "D" command doesn't wait for dial tone or the normal two-second delay. It works faster if you set your "Pause Time for Comma" to 1 second instead of 2. Just a bit of interesting trivia. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Date: 24 Oct 90 12:25:18 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel, Kanata Ontario, Canada. In article <13827@accuvax.nwu.edu> Heath Roberts writes: >>> Any switch on the face of >>> the planet can be adapted for ANI. >>Then why haven't they? Why haven't they offer ANI service as >>they have done with call-waiting, call-forwarding, and etc? It is true any switch in North America can be converted to ANI. Automatic Number identification is used for TELCO billing. A toll call is routed from the local exchange to the billing office (called CAMA - Centralized Automatic Message Accounting?). The CAMA offices sends answer supervision to the local office whch pulses out the calling number and some other information (ie coin call etc) to the CAMA office. The CAMA office then routes the call and is rrsposible for detecting answer supervision from the called partyt and billing the call. Older offices and certain party lines are not capable of providing ANI. They use the ONI system (Operator Number identification) in which one hears the familiar "Wich Number are you dialling please?" More modern digital offices are dispensing with CAMA and ANI and are using LAMA (Local AMA). In this case, the local office has a direct connection to the digital network and can be interrogated remotely by the TELCO's network management system for billing information. ANI is not Calling PArty ID. It is a feature of TELCO billing It is the means by which the TELCO generates caleed party information from older offices (not necessarily digital offices). ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Date: 24 Oct 90 12:29:47 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, > >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' > >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on > >the system must pay for local calls? It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates. It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups. NJ Bell even tariffs residence centrex rates, specifically for the college dorm customer. > >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? > >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones > >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] > No fair, Pat. It's NOT the fault of the PBX! It may or may not be the fault of the PBX. The facts are that NJ Bell offers answer supervision, in the form of a loop current reversal, on PBX trunks. The service is tariffed. There is a per-trunk, per-month, charge for this service. Assuming that Definity is able to receive and process this signaling, there is no technical reason why it isn't being used. There may, however, be a business reason. Supervision is charged-for. You'd pay more for the service. The trade-off is between paying more for calls that are chargeable and paying less, but paying it for some calls which should not have been charged. > If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer > supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about > it. It's not a question of being nice. It's a question of they offer it under tariff, and the customer decides whether or not to buy it. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 09:01:52 EDT From: Gordon D Woods Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <13928@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Martin B Weiss): From Moderator's note: > decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how > that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know > nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you > tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher > than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend. So I usually say > nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening PAT, I can't believe your note. We are the ones who know what is happening and it is incumbent upon us to inform people and put "embarassment" aside. If we don't do it, things like defective COCOTs will endure because the public remains confused. [Moderator's Note: I'll speak out when asked to do so ... but talking to some people about relatively technical telecom stuff is a waste of time. A good many folks -- maybe most of the public -- cannot tell the difference between a telco payphone and a COCOT without looking closely, and even then, they are decieved. When COCOTs first started appearing, *I* could tell the difference easily. Now the COCOT manufacturers are taking care to make their instruments look exactly like the genuine thing; even *I* can only tell the difference sometimes by reading the instruction card in detail: if it says for Repair Service to call something other than 611, for example ... or if it gives a strange dial tone of its own, or a few other things. You expect the public to pay attention? All these years after divestiture the public still refers to 'Ma Bell' and 'the phone company'... admittedly that makes it great for business at the OCC's and the AOS snakepits; it makes it rough for the rest of us though. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 09:36:31 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? PacBell sends me three bills for three residential lines, same address, same owner, that all arrive on the same day. When I had the third number installed, and asked for combined billing, they told me it would cost extra, but they did assign me a number in the same prefix, after first telling me the number would have a different prefix, in order to get the bills to me on the same day. They credited random amounts to different bills several times, and finally told me to notate the check as to how much went for each bill. That seems to have cured the problem. This is in 415-655. ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 24 Oct 90 16:42:13 GMT It's the law in NY that you check two days in advance before digging. There's been a change in utility attitudes in the last few years. Then it was "Please check before digging" and there were funny commercials on TV reminding people. Now it's "Check or else!" Re suing for loss of service: It would be fairer if this were part of the tariff. Now a customer gets nothing unless he's big enough to afford a lawsuit against someone with deep pockets smaller than him. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #761 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12365; 26 Oct 90 2:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04822; 26 Oct 90 0:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20649; 25 Oct 90 23:35 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:12:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #762 BCC: Message-ID: <9010252312.ab11680@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:11:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 762 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Rahul Dhesi] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [John Pedersen] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [David Barts] Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [David Lesher] Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Robert Zabloudil] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Gregory K. Johnson] Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Adam M. Gaffin] Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse) [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [John Higdon] Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [John Higdon] Re: Alternate Telephone Service [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Date: 24 Oct 90 20:12:51 GMT >> M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the >> line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ... So is that why music on hold also invariably includes commercials on hold? Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi ------------------------------ From: "John.Pedersen" Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages Date: 24 Oct 90 12:58:06 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS del47618@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David E Lemson) writes: >ckp@cup.portal.com writes: >>Whenever I call into my audix from home to check messages, it calls me >>back after I hang up. Never says a thing - dead air - but the phone >>will ring (you can bet on it) as soon as I hang up the receiver. >Funny you should talk about this. We have this problem, too. That I get it too when my wife calls from Boeing (their building is not on the Boeing campus thus not supplied service directly from the BTN (Boeing Telephone Network)) and gets our Audix off of our Sys 85. She decides not to leave me a message and hangs up. A few seconds later her phone rings and she hears nothing. I get an Audix message of her answering the phone. Now there is a powerful Audix feature: if you don't leave a message it calls you back and forces you to talk to it! John Pedersen N5DKQ NCR Peripheral Products Division Engineering Computer Systems Support 3718 N. Rock Road John.Pedersen@Wichita.NCR.Com Wichita KS 67226-1397 316-636-8837 VPlus 654-8837 FAX 316-636-8889 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 25 Oct 90 23:41:21 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <13612@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Haynes writes: >I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers >organization after the great Bell System breakup. >[Moderator's Note: They are still around in the local operating >companies, and at AT&T. There was some question back in the early My aunt, who was a career operator with Indiana Bell and retired when their operator services were consolidated at South Bend, is quite active in the Fort Wayne chapter of the Telephone Pioneers. Since Fort Wayne is in GTE-land, many other members of the chapter are GTE people, and some work for United Telephone and some of the small local telcos. I'm not aware that the Pioneers were ever exclusively Bell System people. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 21:04:09 pdt From: David Barts Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! What I'm wondering is why IBT didn't bury a strip of warning tape above the cable. (Maybe they did, but I've heard no mention of something like "the contractor ignored the warning tape and continued digging" in any accounts I've heard of this incident.) When my parents had a house built in 1977, I distinctly remember the utilities filling the trenches to within a foot of the top, laying a strip of thick yellow plastic tape, and then filling the trenches the rest of the way. This was in a western state (New Mexico) that has far fewer laws and regulations than a populous state like Illinois. Why would IBT (or the state of Illinois) fail to take the same steps to protect a major trunk in the 1980s that Mountain bell took to protect a single residential service drop in the 1970s? David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 18:24:36 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers MOH also covers up crosstalk. In law offices, especially, it can cause real problems for party X to overhear party Y. Of course attorneys seem to be the WORST people for discussing sensitive material on cellphones, too. ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information Date: 25 Oct 90 15:14:30 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <13914@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 755, Message 1 of 11 Gosh, I hope I'm not too far behind reading the Digest... >While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre >recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both >the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple >incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same >time. I believe that there are services which allow this on a >nationwide basis, or even on a local basis through a special exchange, One of my previous jobs involved as a side duty the regular updating of the "KRVR Weather Line", which did indeed allow multiple callers to hear the same recording at the same time. I never got bold enough to dig into the 'inner workings', but we always ended our spiel with, "If you called in the middle, the message repeats", which it would, once. I'm sure there was a nationwide marketer of these 'boxes' that got a kickback of the commercial message we recorded along with the weather and condx, but that wasn't part of what we needed to know to do our part. By the way, we were supposed to "wait for the green light to go out" before updating the message. On the day of the 1978 blizzard, we had to cutover to the 'short' message in the middle of a call several times ... hope the vast masses understood. [Moderator's Note: 'The vast masses' ?? ... Gosh, now you are beginning to sound like a certain gas-bag radio commentator on WFMT in Chicago, or a particularly arrogant columnist for {The Washington Post}. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gregory K Johnson Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA Organization: Columbia University Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 19:41:59 GMT In article <13943@accuvax.nwu.edu> Richard.Lerner@lerner.avalon. cs.cmu.edu writes: >[...] My most recent example of poor design was when >I called Sprint to be added to their frequent caller program. The >number was answered with a phone menu (like the long one above). >Having the requisite touch-tone phone, I pushed 1. The machine next >asked for my account number. Since I was calling from work, I did not >have my number handy and I figured that my name would be sufficient if >someone would listen to it. So I waited for a time out... "Please >enter your account number now" ... "Please enter your account number >now." ... "Please enter your account number now." .... Finally, the >machine just hung up!!! AT&T College & University Systems has a brain-damaged computer that does this also when it asks you for your account number. But what was most galling was that when I called back and waited for an operator, the operator couldn't look up my account number! This is one of many tales of woe with ACUS. In my opinion their service is completely incompetent. Greg ------------------------------ From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households Organization: The World Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 01:00:43 GMT According to Frank Walter, an MCI spokesman, when you sign up for their service, you just have to put an 800 in front of your home number. Since a given number could be duplicated across scores of area codes, you need the "security" code to tell the system where to route the call. Each customer will be allowed to pick their own 4-digit code, but the company will check them first to make sure they too, are not duplicated somewhere, he says. Robin Pence, a spokeswoman for Sprint, says they are just giving customers their own unique 800 numbers. She says there has been some talk of setting up a new 400 series of numbers when the 800s are exhausted. Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968 Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461 ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted Date: 25 Oct 90 09:37:04 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13948@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking > "collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up. ... > If the only choice is a > gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller? Murphy's view of a gouge-a-matic: "But, sir, our gouge-a-matic automatically detected that you actually did accept the call -- it has quite an extensive vocabulary to do just that." "I most certainly did not." "But we have your response recorded here; is this your voice sir?" "Will you accept the charges?" "Absolutely" Hee . . . 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: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse) Date: 25 Oct 90 10:05:42 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13940@accuvax.nwu.edu>, oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: > What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the > input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and > could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it > was not a pushbutton phone generating pulses. It was a phone that can > so either with the switch set to tone position. I could clearly hear > the DTMF. I *think* this is what was happening to me (sometimes) at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in September. It made it really difficult (impossible) to DISA and/or voice mail. I think it might have worked once, but I couldn't figure out any possible timeouts, etc to repeat my success. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town Date: 25 Oct 90 12:23:51 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Ron Heiby writes: > I called the AT&T (my LD carrier) operator and reported this event. > She tried placing the call and got the same noise. She contacted > another operator, I presume near Chicago, who also tried it. Same > noises. The two AT&T operators probably spent 5-10 minutes trying to > get me connected to IBT Repair. It is too bad that they couldn't get through. For anyone else who finds himself in the same situation, the FIRST thing to try is the AT&T operator. For various reasons, it is frequently necessary to reach "611" repair in cities all across the country from where I sit in CA. The AT&T operator has never failed to connect me to the most remote repair bureaus. Sometimes the call goes through directly and other times the operator needs to get other operators involved, but they seem very willing to help. Haven't tried this with Sprint :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Date: 25 Oct 90 12:42:00 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" writes: > Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone > systems? Also what is a 1A2 key system? A reference would aalso be > good. A 1A2 key system is the formerly ubiquitous arrangement found in small businesses. Typically the phones had a thick cable and six buttons across the front that represented outside lines and would light when the line was in use. For larger operations, there were ten, twenty, even thirty-line phones. Various types of intercoms were available. Actually, these systems are still available new if you don't mind basics. The A/A1 leads for each line controlled what the KSU (central unit) did with the line. The A lead is the actual control lead and the A1 is ground. When you come off-hook on a line, the A/A1 pair is closed through the switchhook. This causes the light to come on. When you hang up, the pair opens and the light goes out. Now for the magic. If you open the pair without opening the Tip/Ring pair (as the HOLD button does) then the KSU will sieze the line and wink the light. You may then open the Tip/Ring pair (button pops up) without losing the call. Reclosing the A/A1 pair and the Tip/Ring pair (pushing the button back down) re-accesses the line. If the line is ringing (light flashing), then closure of the A/A1 pair signals an answer. As far as a reference goes, I learned what I know about 1A2 from Direct Experience (tm). Data sheets that come with KSUs pretty much assume you know all about it (or don't care), since they only tell you where the wires go. Back when I learned 1A2, this was all handled by the telephone company and ordinary people had "no legitimate need" for such information, hence there weren't many references. It is probably a different story now. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ed Hopper Subject: Re: Alternate Telephone Service Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 06:26:49 CDT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 asuvax!rako!rakoczynskij@ncar.ucar.edu (Jurek Rakoczynski) writes: > Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service > supplier'. I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a > (cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was > planning to provide alternate phone service in competion with the > local telco. This was in addition to other services available on the > fiber. I don't remember where I read this, but I am not confusing > this with just running fiber to the homes, like in California. I > remember the term 'Alternate Telephone Service' or something like > that. I recall reading the other day that a firm (in NYC I believe) recently began work on a fiber net to connect major buildings in Manhattan for bypass purposes. This venture was NOT intended to provide residential service (except perhaps to some big residential buildings on an incidental basis). I don't believe that exchange service was the objective, it was more designed to provide inter-exchange services via T-1's etc to the various LD carriers. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #762 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13639; 26 Oct 90 3:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18754; 26 Oct 90 1:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04822; 26 Oct 90 0:42 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 0:05:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #763 BCC: Message-ID: <9010260005.ab31379@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Oct 90 00:05:11 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 763 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (was Music on Hold) [T. Steele] Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: Autoconnect from DA in PA [Vance Shipley] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Michael P. Deignan] Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Ed Hopper] Re: A "New" Interexchange Carrier [Kevin A. Mitchell] Re: Ancient ANI [Jim Rees] Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [vu0425@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu] Correction Notice: Re: Who or What is ITI? [Eric Dittman] Destinctions and Definitions Needed [George S. Thurman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 14:53:11 BST From: Tim Steele Subject: Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (was Music on Hold) In article <13852@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > | 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. When I was very young (!) I called a company in California from Cambridge, England using a British pay phone. I had a huge sack of 10p pieces to stuff into the phone (about one every three seconds!) I was so taken aback by the Californian accent on the other end that the conversation started like this: Phone: "Memory Merchant?" Me: "Uh ... are you an answering machine?" Phone: " I... don't think so!" Um. Tim tjfs@tadtec.uucp ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs Tadpole Technology plc, Science Park, Milton Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 4WQ Phone: +44-223-423030 Fax: +44-223-420772 Telex: 817316 TADTEC G ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 18:31:12 GMT In article <13855@accuvax.nwu.edu> dross@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Ross) writes: >Future Change in Local Usage Service >[elimination of all residential local call plans; replacement with >"Volume Discount Plan," with sliding scaled prices on calls, in >addition to $9.50/mo charge. PSC requires Wisc Bell to implement this >no later than July 1, 1992; no decision on when it will happen.] >Number of Local Calls Made Price per Local Call > 1 - 60 6 cents each > 61- 150 5 " > 151-300 4 " > 301-400 3 " > 401-1200 2 " > 1201 and up 5 cents each >[Example paraphrased: 70 calls cost 60*0.06 + 10*0.05 = $4.10] Yuck. I certainly hope this isn't a trend that's going to happened everywhere. Unlimited local calling is a "must" for people with uucp connections or what have you. For example, over the summer, my roommate and I both had a U*ix box in our bedrooms. We both called once an hour - me on the hour, him on the half hour. We got our phone bill the next month, and the kind souls at Michigan Bell told us we had made something like 1,456 local calls. At that calling rate, that's $72.80, FOR LOCAL CALLS! Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. (I know, how often are you going to have two uucp systems that poll hourly on the same residential line ... but it CAN happen. :-) I like unlimited local calling. I'd rather pay for touch tone and still have that option available than get touch tone for free and have to pay for all the local calls my computer makes. Eddy J. Gurney N8FPW THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP eddy@jafus.mi.org gurney@frith.egr.msu.edu 17158EJG@MSU.BITNET (Preferred) (If your mail bounces) (If you HAVE to :-) ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 00:23:25 GMT In article <13846@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: >Bell of PA as an example. Apparently, when you ask for a directory >number in PA, you get the usual computer generated answer, followed by >the suggestion that for an additional 30 cents, you can be connected >automatically. Presumably, these are for local calls, or perhaps in >addition to the toll charges. This is almost certainly provided from a Northern Telecom TOPS MP system. In my NT Product Handbook the following description is found (sic): TOPS MP TOPS MP (Traffic Operator Position System Multipurpose) is a universal operator system developed to meet emerging call-processing requirements. Designed to allow telephone operating companies to combine multiple operator functions into a single work station, TOPS MP also provides optimal operator efficiency, reliability, and comfort. Through its fully-integrated proprietary interface with DMS-200 and external data bases, TOPS MP offers a universal approach to operator services. Traditionally, separate functions of toll services and directory assistance are combined in the same trunk network, automatic call distributors, and operator teams. In addition to providing multiple data base access, TOPS MP provides integrated alternate billing and audio response for new services, and integrated voice and data interfaces. Such integration consolidates tasks and eliminates the need for seperate management, clerical, and methods of support for each function. DMS-200 TOPS introduced in 1981 TOPS MP introduced in 1987 Product Summary Nomenclature: TOPS MP Features: The initial TOPS MP offering, TOPS MP Version 1, is a Toll and Assistance (TA) system integrating state-of-the-art developments in ergonomics and producing the lowest Average Work Time (AWT) in the industry. TOPS MP Version 2, the latest advance in operator-service capabilities for the telephone operating company, adds Advanced Directory Assistance (ADA) and Intercept (INT) services to the functionality of TOPS MP Version 1. Advanced Directory Assistance offers major improvements over current Directory Assistance (DA) service offerings by including all of today's DA services with the power of a full-service Toll and Assistance tandem switch with Automatic Call Distribution (ACD). Revenue-generating services such as automatic or operator Directory Assistance Call Completion (DACC), ADA branding and per-DA-request billing (with alternate billing service options) are integrated features of TOPS MP Version 2. Intercept on TOPS MP Version 2 provides the full range of intercept services required today, and serves Automatic Intercept Service (AIS), Operator Number Identification (ONI) and Automatic Number Identification Fail (ANIF) intercept, and split referrals. Where appropriate, Version 2 also serves intercept recalls to an operator so that further assistance can be given to an intercepted call. Benefits: TOPS MP supports multiple network trunking arrangements. Advanced Directory Assistance, Intercept, and Toll and Assistance calls can arrive on seperate or combined trunk groups. TOPS MP Version 2, and any Version 1 site with BCS27 or higher software, can support up to 100 entries in the Outgoing Trunk (OGT) list. The OGT list consolidates the OGT,Transfer (XFER), and Assistance functions of TOPS MP Version 1 and TOPS 4 systems. With TOPS MP Version 2, operator-services management can combine all TA, ADA, and INT activities in a fully integrated multipurpose system, or the services can be administered through seperate teams. In either mode, only one ACD group is required to serve all operator service needs, as well as other possible network requirements, such as access tandem functions. With a single ACD group, TOPS MP Version 2 performs the functions that currently require three seperate ACD groups in most applications. To support the administration of TOPS MP, Northern Telecom provides statistical data that allows administration of a universal position system. Statistical data for TA, ADA, and INT are outputted for each basic service and also are combined in order to evaluate total system performance. TOPS MP also goes far beyond the capabilities of current operator-services work stations or personal computer-based systems by allowing telephone operating companies independent access to selected service nodes and data bases, thereby giving management team full control of the office. Vance Shipley SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group (519)746-4460 vances@ltg or ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Date: 25 Oct 90 00:50:21 GMT Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >In the case of the cable cut, the cut did occur, the contractor was >responsible, an ordinary contractor following the customs of the >profession would have "done a JULIE," and then there would have been >at least some legal protection. One could still argue that when a >excavator encounters an unknown obstacle, they should give it at least >some cursory examination before using brute force to remove it. Even if the contractor had done a "Julie", there is still no special indemnification that the contractor receives as a result (at least, from what I've gathered from the various postings...) I do find it disturbing that various utility lines could be running under your property with no apparent warning. I used to live in a fairly rural area, thru which natural gas and petroleum pipelines ran. Whenever you intersected either underground line with a road, there were "posts" on both sides of the road warning you of the presence of the pipelines. Seems that something similar was lacking in this case. Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST ------------------------------ From: Ed Hopper Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 20:35:35 CDT Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 In article <13822@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >Isn't there an "in-between" alternative, where the instrument appears >to be dedicated ring-down service, but in reality places the call when >the customer goes off-hook? Absolutely, I remember one feature in the AT&T Dimension PBX called "Hot Line Service". With that, one translated two extensions to ring each other when they went off hook. They still connected to the PBX and didn't require auxiliary ringdown equipment like one might have implementing ringdown with 1A2 key equipment. One quick translation change and you were back to normal extensions (assuming you had the Customer Admin Panel, which most sites didn't in the 70's & early 80's). I don't know if Hot Line Service was carried over into the System 85/75/Definity world, I stopped doing dialtone in 1983. Ed Hopper AT&T Computer Systems ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Re: A "New" Interexchange Carrier Date: 25 Oct 90 14:06:42 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago You CAN get to other telco's 611 via seven-digit service. I had some tremendous problems calling the only free Compuserve node in my area (after IBT restructured rates to remove unlimited Call-Pak, and 'reduce' [actually, increase by 600%] my phone bill). It was too noisy to even log in, and was in Centel-land. I called Illinois Bell and complained of a trunk or called-party problem (I could call any OTHER modem from home, I explained), and they gave me a 7-digit number that reached Centel repair service. In two days, the problem was fixed; a trunk cable running through O'Hare Airport had gotten wet. CIS couldn't help; when they called the node long distance, it didn't go through the bad wire, so they got no noise. Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 16:36:40 GMT In article <13950@accuvax.nwu.edu>, varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: >Two other differences: 1) ANI can be sent in 7 and 10 digit versions, >depending on who's sending/receiving, and identifies the number >CHARGED for this part of the call. May not be a valid number or the >number actually assigned to the caller. CallerID is (so far) always >10 digits. I sure hope the ten-digit limit isn't built into either the protocol or the displays. While North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers are ten digits if you strip off the country code, in general phone numbers can be just about any length. Does anyone out there actually have a working display? Is it limited to ten digits? Trivia department: We saw a few very long phone numbers on this list a few weeks back. What's the shortest phone number (including country code) in the world? What's the longest? To qualify, it's got to be a world-wide unique number, diallable from anywhere ("0" doesn't count). ------------------------------ From: vu0425 Subject: Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens Date: 25 Oct 90 12:06:21 GMT Reply-To: Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center In article <13969@accuvax.nwu.edu> AAT@vtmsl.bitnet (Asif Taiyabi) writes: >Since there was a posting some time back whether Non U.S citizens >could be denied credit legally, I am posting the information I >received on one of the Universal Card brochures -- As far as I recall, a federal judge ruled that non-US citizens could be denied credit legally, and that the Equal Credit Laws did not apply to them. But then again, I'm a permanent resident, and I've never had a problem getting any credit. I've got a whole slew of high interest credit cards, an auto loan (as of yesterday morning!). However, look at it from the point of view of the creditor. I could, if I wanted, skip the country tomorrow, stick my car on a ship, take it back to my country of origin; take all my credit cards to their limit. What're my creditors going to do? Try to have me extradited for owing them between 3000-10000 dollars each? Sounds rational, but it's pretty impossible. In the meantime I could be zooming around in the streets of Bombay in my shiny new Ford Taurus, spending all the hundreds of thousands of rupees that I ripped of these "foreign" credit card companies. Therefore, until there exist better international agreements on such matters, I have no problems with the fact that Equal Credit laws do not apply to non-citizens. ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Correction Notice: Re: Who or What is ITI? Date: 24 Oct 90 15:09:02 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility PAT, ITI is International Telecharge, Inc. Telesphere is Telesphere Communications, Inc. The companies are in no way related. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com [Moderator's Note: Thanks for calling attention to this. You are right, and I stand corrected. I know what I meant to say -- what I typed was a different matter entirely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 18:49 GMT From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: Distinctions and Definitions Needed Greetings, Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms) the difference between SS7 and CCIS. G S Thurman MCI MAIL 4056081 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #763 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08624; 27 Oct 90 3:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18907; 27 Oct 90 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17759; 27 Oct 90 0:49 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 0:30:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #764 BCC: Message-ID: <9010270030.ab02456@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Oct 90 00:30:24 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 764 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Online AT&T Mail Registration [Fred E. J. Linton] Canadian Telegram Prices May Rise [Nigel Allen] NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Brian Jay Gould] Quality of Telecommunications Services and Products Workshop [Susan Webber] Cable Breaks [Steve Gaarder] Easements and Utility Company Obligations [David G. Cantor] My CO is Scheduled to be Cutover [David Lesher] Info Needed Ahout Peacenet Non-Profit Mail Service [Bruce B. LeRoy] Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? [Steve Rhoades] Best Deal For Calling Japan [Thomas Summerall] More SOCal COCOT Info [Ron Schnell] Billing For Forwarded Calls [Carl Moore] Re: Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:15 GMT From: Fred E J Linton <0004142427@mcimail.com> Subject: Online AT&T Mail Registration I've just unearthed an old brochure explaining how one registers for AT&T Mail on-line: make a modem call to 1 800 624 5123 (2400, 1200, or 300 baud, 8 bit, no parity); give one (or more) 's; and at the login prompt, type REGISTER followed by another . The system will walk you through its on-line registration procedure. Have a creditcard number or EFT number handy. You can back out at any time with a ^C (-C) and a QUIT. Other ways to register: through a human at the end of the telephone-tree on 1 800 624 5672 or on 1 800 367 7225 (mention extension 720); by mail or by FAX (through faxline 1 201 668 1683) using forms available from the Telemarketing folks at the 367 7225 800-number mentioned above. A couple further AT&T Mail features I neglected to mention before (I've never used them): "Mail Talk" permits retrieval of messages w/o a terminal from any DTMF phone -- text messages get "spoken" by a synthesized voice; and there are "Autoanswer" and "Autoresponse" options permitting fairly flexible automatic response to either all or selected incoming messages (someone I know had an "Autoforward" option turned on once, but I have no documentation on that). Fred or ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:19 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canadian Telegram Prices May Rise Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Unitel Communications Inc. (formerly CNCP Telecommunications) applied today (October 25) to the CRTC for permission to increase the rates it charges for telegrams and related services. Telex and private line services would not be affected by the application. Telegrams: within Canada would rise by 10%, to $6.90 for the first fifteen words. To the U.S. would rise by 15%, to $10.65 for the first 20 words. Telepost: (the message is printed out at a post office and delivered in the regular mail): increasing the rates "to telegram level", an increase of 50 percent within Canada and 74 percent to the U.S. Personal opinion messages (addressed to elected politicians) to $3.99 (formerly $3.50) within Canada. Same-day hand delivery is $7.99 within Canada, Monday to Friday, and $10.99 on Saturday. Introduction of next day hand delivery at a proposed rate of $4.99. If you wish to comment on this application or any aspect of Unitel's telegram services or pricing, write to: Secretary General Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0N2 Refer to Unitel Tariff Notice 573 (the formal designation of the application) Send a copy of your letter to: Mr. Allan G. Duncan General Manager, Regulatory Matters Unitel Communications Inc. 3300 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario Canada M8X 2W9 Mr. Duncan's voice number is (416) 232-6332. His fax number is (416) 232-6878. If you would like a copy of the application, ask Mr. Duncan. Nigel Allen telephone (416) 535-8916 52 Manchester Avenue fax (416) 978-7736 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) Date: 26 Oct 90 21:47:28 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. I have been trying to help a non-profit organization cope with the people at New Jersey Bell who don't give a s--- whether or not the Centrex service works for them. It all started when it wasn't possible to disable call forwarding. Several calls to NJ Bell over two weeks resulted in no action from NJ Bell. I then called on their behalf. NJ Bell folks told the customer that the problem HAD to be that they weren't keying the right codes. I insisted that the problem had to be in software. Then after tedious instructions between NJ Bell and the customer, NJ Bell decided that the problem was with a faulty installation of lines several weeks before the problem began. I called again to suggest that their analysis was cow dip. They said they'd look into it. After working with the customer over the phone for a few more minutes, NJ Bell suggested that "all of the telephones" at the customer site must be defective. They called the customer again about fifteen minutes later and asked them to try it again. It worked! I asked, A software problem? "NO" insisted NJ Bell. The problem must have been with the customer's wiring but has suddenly corrected itself! (?!) Now, the same customer needs to reconfigure their services to something much more sensible. (multi-line phones, and some feature changes) NJ Bell refuses to give them the time of day. No one will call back, and customer service says that they can't help. After dealing with NJ Bell for about nine years, I have come to understand that it is their policy to deny that they have any problems (both technically, and in other matters). But if someone in the system can help, please call me at (609) 799-2706 - or send e-mail. I know that NJ Bell is too busy to help a 40 line customer, but it is a public service organization. Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else. Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer [Moderator's Note: I had my service changed in numerous ways in the past couple of days: IBT is still trying to get it working right! I dropped Starline and subscribed to all the new CLASS features. Maybe I will write about it in one of the issues over the weekend. Its been a real riot. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Susan Webber Subject: Quality of Telecommunications Services and Products Workshop Date: 26 Oct 90 22:34:52 GMT Organization: gte A workshop on "Quality of Telecommunications Services & Products" is being organized by the IEEE Quality Assurance Management Committee. The workshop is structured to serve as a forum for information exchange and discussion among experts in various fields of telecommunications. There will be two and a half days of sequential technical sessions, including panel discussions and an after#dinner talk. Total participation is limited to 63 people. In the past we have found that this format facilitates communication. Abstracts (between 200 and 500 words) are being solicited in two areas of product quality in telecommunications. Information about these sessions is as follows: Predicting Product Quality As the demand for higher quality telecommunication products increases, methods that can accurately predict product quality during development become increasingly important. A telecommunications vendor can no longer afford to #wait and see" if all of the new methods and processes invested will pay off in the delivery of a high quality product. Recent efforts in the field of telecommunications quality assurance have focused on developing effective methods for predicting product quality at a relatively early stage in the product development life cycle. This session will focus on those methods being used by telecommunications vendors to predict product quality. Measuring Product Quality With increased competition in the field of telecommunications, it has become more critical that both vendors and customers develop and apply valid measurement systems for assessing the quality of their products. In the past, measurement systems were often incomplete and did not focus on assessing quality as it was perceived by the customer. Metrics such as defects per thousand lines of code, while perhaps being appropriate for benchmarking internal processes, do not give a complete assessment of the product's quality as perceived by the customer. This session will focus on both vendor and customer presentations on measuring product quality and how one can assess if product quality is improving. Telecommunications vendors as well as customers are encouraged to submit appropriate abstracts. Abstracts for either session should be submitted to the address (U.S. or USENET) below. The deadline for abstracts is November 30, 1990. A full paper is not required. Those individuals who submit abstracts that are accepted will be asked to give a 15-minute presentation. Presentations should emphasize practice, problems, and directions in meeting new technologies. Where possible, case studies should be presented to illustrate results. For more information about the workshop, contact Susan Webber at the address below, at 602-582-7783, or USENET address below. Susan Webber, Manager, R&D Quality Assurance AG Communication Systems Corporation P. O. Box 52179 2500 West Utopia Road Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2179 Voice: 602-582-7783 FAX: 602-582-7111 UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!a1.bustop.umc!webbers (Note: Do not reply to posting address. It is incorrect) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 19:25:58 EDT From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Cable Breaks Some 15 or so years ago, a local farmer cut the main cable that carried toll calls out of Ithaca, N.Y. He was digging fence post holes, and when he hit the cable, he figured he'd found an old, abandoned cable, and proceeded to dig two more holes into the cable. A NY Tel spokesman was quoted as saying, "we really wish he'd stopped after the first one." The following is a story I heard once, and may be just another legend: A craft was splicing a cable outside in bad weather, and decided to do the job in comfort by running each end through opposite windows of his van, and sitting inside. It was, "they" say, cheaper to cut open the roof of the van than cut and re-splice the cable. Steve Gaarder, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. gaarder@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Easements and Utility Company Obligations Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 08:14:23 -0700 From: "David G. Cantor" I live on a private road. My property extends to the middle of the street. The main "virtue" of this is that I am responsible for maintenance of the road. All of the utilities have easements. Most of these easements are in an "easement strip", 10 feet wide, between my home and the curb. These include gas, water, telephone, cable TV, and electricity. Right now, LA County is installing a new drainage system and they (their contractor) had all of the utilities identify where their cables, pipes, etc., were. It didn't matter. The contractor has broken TV cables, telephone cables, water pipes, and electrical cable (fortunately, not gas). And everyone blames the other party. The contractor claims that the utilities gave him the wrong locations and the utilities blame the contractor. None of these utilities ever do an adequate patching job after digging up the road and the main reason we are going to have to repave is because of these bad patches. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: My CO is Scheduled to be Cutover Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:57:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I just found out that I'm scheduled to be cutover from our existing 1{A?}ESS to a DMSnnn. As a POTS user, what differences will I notice, if any? Am I likely to have trouble with either V.22/MNP or PEP transmission thru the DMS? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 1990 07:53:58 PDT From: Bruce_B._LeRoy.Henr801e@xerox.com Subject: Info Needed About Peacenet Non-Profit Mail Service Where can I get more info on Peacenet? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:02:27 PDT From: Steve Rhoades Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? This question is primarily targeted for those of you with Caller*ID. Since the FSK Caller*ID data is sent between the first and second rings, I was wondering if it's possible to actually hear it using a butt set in the monitor position. Or for that matter, any kind of monitor that wouldn't produce and "off hook" condition. On a related note, can someone point me to the specs on demodulating this data ? It's probably in a BSTJ somewhere. (remember BSTJs ?) Steve slr@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ From: Thomas Summerall Subject: Best Deal For Calling Japan Date: 26 Oct 90 16:22:12 GMT Anyone know which service has the best rates for calling Japan? Tom Summerall ------------------------------ From: Ron Schnell Subject: More SOCal COCOT Info Reply-To: Ron Schnell Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 20:04:27 GMT I called Pac Bell to report some COCOTs in violation and they said since it was out of their area I would have to report them to GTE. So I figured I would post the number to report violating COCOTs in GTE's area: (800) 634 - 7797. I have found a lot of phones which only charge 20 cents for local call, but the face of the phone says "deposit 25 cents." What's the opinion of people out their as to whether those phones are in violation. I think most people probably put a quarter in the phone since it says to deposit coin first. But they are only charging 20 cents. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 15:32:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Billing For Forwarded Calls On a normal phone bill, you see calls "to" if you dial direct, and "from ... to" (or vice versa) for third-party or credit-card (calling-card) calls, and you get "[collect] from" if you accepted a collect call? Now if you call-forward to a number which is long-distance, you are to see the long-distance charge for a call from your phone to the phone where you are forwarding to. How does this appear on your phone bill? (Lack, for whatever reason, of Caller-ID would prevent you from seeing the number which called you and got forwarded, right?) [Moderator's Note: Because it is not a credit card or third-party-pay call, you would not see the 'from' information. You would merely see a long distance call at direct dial rates, placed from your line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 15:55:18 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries Dan Sahlin writes in volume 10, #742: >Are there any more countries where you have to pay for directory >enquiries? I believe there are several measured-service plans for directory enquiries (in the U.S., you normally see the word "assistance", not "enquiries"). My own telephone service has such a plan; for numbers within Delaware, I think it's three free calls per month, with my being able to request two numbers per call. Elsewhere, I think it is chargeable and comes under my long distance carrier, with possible exception of area 215 (since I am in the Philadelphia LATA along with most but not all of 215). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #764 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18969; 27 Oct 90 14:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25706; 27 Oct 90 12:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00179; 27 Oct 90 11:55 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:02:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #765 BCC: Message-ID: <9010271102.ab03248@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:02:22 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 765 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Vance Shipley] Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [B. Kantor] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [J. Lister] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [R. Zellich] Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [John Higdon] Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [Floyd Davidson] Re: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers? [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 14:01:57 GMT In article <13966@accuvax.nwu.edu> drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone >systems? Also what is a 1A2 key system? A reference would aalso be >good. When you say "key telephone systems" I assume you mean "electronic key telephones" (EKT). The predecessor to todays EKT's was the 1A2 key. The 1A2 key telephone system can be recognized (and spotted nearly everywhere) by the familiar 500/2500 type desk set with a larger base and six buttons at the front. One button is red and the others are clear. The red button is the hold and the others are line appearances or even intercom. The line cord for these sets is a 25-pair cable (sometimes 16-pair). Each line appearance uses 3-pair (although two wires used as return grounds could be skipped, using a common ground for return). The six wires are T/R,A/A1,LG,L. These are; Tip and Ring of the CO line, A and A1 control (wired to the button in the set, a normally open contact which is closed when the line button is depressed), Lamp Ground and Lamp (the power to light the lamp in the button). When a line appearance button is depressed at a set the A1 lead signals the KSU that it is in use. The KSU lights the lamps for all other appearances of that line (with the L lead). Note that the actual CO line is always available at every set, it is only neccesary to signal the KSU to light the lamps. Now the hold key would be the subject of another lengthy article! The application of A/A1 control in an EKT system allows the integration of EKT and 1A2 on the same lines. When a user on the 1A2 grabs a line the LED associated with that line on the EKT's will light. But before you think that this is a useless feature in today's telecom world think of the other uses to put it to. Most hayes compatable modems include A/A1 control! You can use your modem on a line that is on the EKT system and other users will not be able to break in, their LED's will be lit. How about those credit verification terminals, fax machines and TDD's? If you don't have an A/A1 control pair on your terminal you can run down to Radio Shack and buy a cheap little box which senses when the CO line is in use and trips a relay providing A/A1. (I hope these are still available). For a reference you might try Radio Shack for a book called "Understanding Telephone Electronics". This is actually a very good reference on the history and operation of telephones and the network. Vance Shipley SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group (519)746-4460 vances@ltg or ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Date: 27 Oct 90 00:59:11 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) asks about A/A1 and 1A2: A 1A2 key system is the electronic replacement for the 1a1 all relay ones that preceeded them. This is a relatively simple system that typically has a KSU supporting 4, 6, or 13 cards. Each card is wired in series with T+R going to the phones. The card does several things. It can detect ringing and start a local interrupter (to have ringing and lamp flashing for many lines all in step) and connect the flashing lamp service to the lamp lead for that line. It will light that lamp lead steady if a phone is picked up by noticing that the A lead for that line and the A1 lead (local signal ground, and the pair-mate to the phone's A lead for line 1) have been connected. If the current through the T+R path breaks and then the A A1 connection breaks, (normal hangup sequence) the card knows you are hanging up and the lamp goes out. If the A-A1 connection is broken BUT the current is still flowing from Tip to Ring, the line card knows you want to go on hold (things are in this state when you have the hold button bottomed). The card immediately switches a 135 ohm 5 watt (typical) resistor across T+R to simulate a phone off hook to hold the line up. The card also starts the interrupter and switches the wink supply to that lines lamp ckt. The card monitors loop current on hold and if it drops (the far end probably hung up) drops the hold. The timing of this can be extended to bridge short duration opens such as those caused by call waiting by a strapping option usually involving adding a cap. Answering machines and modems sometimes have the A + A1 leads so they can light the light and trip local ringing, etc. if used behind such a 1A2 key system. A non A A1 equipped device can be supplemented with an adapter that watches for loop current and gives the A A1 signal. Answering machine manufactuorers that no longer include A A1 support often suggest a source for such a device if they don't offer it themselves. Does this give you enough, or do you have some specific other questions? There are also probably many similar answers someone could point you to in the archives. ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 26 Oct 90 19:32:36 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I too had problems some years ago with multiple bills that I paid on a single check until I got into the habit of stapling the bills and check together and folding them lengthwise. This causes the whole package to be rejected by the machine that normally extracts the bill and check from the envelope, and forces a person to deal with it as a whole. I did find that it sometimes took them up to an extra week to credit the payment. The returned checks didn't look damaged in any way, so I don't think the machine jammed (most use suction cups, so staples don't hurt them anyway). Since I've moved, Pac Bell have been handling multiple bills and one check in an envelope much better, so I don't use the staple and fold trick. Perhaps they've improved their procedures or equipment. Brian ------------------------------ From: John Lister Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Organization: Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 23:02:50 GMT I don't seem to have that problem. I ordered two phone lines from NJ Bell when I moved into my house 18 months ago. Two different numbers on the same exchange, one bill. Even better, the second line was given at a discount rate precisely BECAUSE they could bill to the same address. And, it wasn't published, so that I can cheerfully ignore incoming calls on it, because they have to be from random dialling. I recently ordered another phone line (decided I wanted two voice + modem and the builder wired the house with six-pair cable, so what the hell). Different exchange (from the same building) but still one bill. John Lister ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 10:43:50 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re:Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? When I moved from a condo in St. Louis to a house out in the 'burbs, I "transferred" my existing account to a local-only number, and also had a second line installed in the new location with Metro (toll-free to/from St. Louis metro-area) service. Initially, I received three transition bills - one for each of the new lines, and one for the discontinued service. The old-service bill was because the service overlapped for about a week and the turn-off date Southwestern Bell's computer had was two days after the billing cutoff period, and they charged me for the entire month. The three bills were extremely confusing and, during a long conversation with Customer Service, I was told that I would continue to get two bills, one for each new number, because they were different prefixes/one was metro and the two prefixes had different billing cutoff dates. I protested this, telling the lady that it seemed wrong since both prefixes were actually served by the same local plant (metro or not, the Metro number is still a local prefix), but she insisted they couldn't do it any other way as long as I had one local and one Metro line. So yesterday I get my first "regular" bill for the new location. Lo and behold, the credit for a partial month for the old service, the local, and the Metro numbers are all on the same bill, with separate detail breakout of each, and a polite little note is enclosed telling me that my billing cutoff date is changed due to the move to a new CO! Gee, just the way I thought it should work -- so much for Customer "Service". The only thing they still do wrong is that they lump all the charges for the line into one "service" amount - a total of $28.75 for one line with Metro service and TouchTone and one line with local-only service and pulse-dial only. I really think they should break out each of the charges so I know I'm getting/paying for the features I ordered. I suspect this is done so nobody complains about the TouchTone charge that would then be thrust under their noses month after month. They *do* break out a $1.10 charge that is supposed to be for "extended area" service; when questioned, CS stated that this was an extra charge added because they had widened the free-calling service area for everybody ... but I'm already paying a $7.60 premium for Metro service on that line myself ... and the "local" number is *really* local - the most restricted free-calling area I've ever seen. In arguing for a detail breakout of the basic "service" charge, I have new experience: one item on the new bill was a credit for dropping the second phone-book listing in my wife's maiden name. At one time, we were entitled to a second listing free, and took advantage of it; some- where along the line, they started charging *monthly* for it, and added $1.60/month to the "service" charge lump sum part of the bill. If I had known about it, I would have canceled the extra listing two years ago, when we got married and her name was known to have changed by one and all. The above-mentioned $28.75 is another CS screwup. When I ordered the service, I was told it was $36.85 (including the $1.10 extended area charge, which wasn't even mentioned) *plus* the $7 Federal End User Common Line Charges, which would have added up to $43.85. It turns out to be only $28.75, plus $1.10, plus $7, for a *grand total* of $36.85. The full breakout turns out to be: Line 1 (listed) - $ 9.65 Line 1 Federal End User... - 3.50 Line 2 (unlisted) - 9.65 [no charge for not listing Line 2 Metro (wide-area) - 7.60 second line] Line 2 TouchTone - 1.85 Line 2 extended area charge - 1.10 Line 2 Federal End User... - 3.50 ------ $36.85 (plus miscellaneous taxes, of course) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed Date: 26 Oct 90 02:09:15 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Signaling System #7 (SS7) is the seventh major implimentation and standard for Common Channel Interoffice Signaling (CCIS). John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:09:18 GMT In article <14030@accuvax.nwu.edu> George S Thurman <0004056081@ mcimail.com> writes: >Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms) >the difference between SS7 and CCIS. CCS (Common Channel Signaling) removes the signaling functions from the individual trunks (ie. multifreq tones for dialing numbers) and instead routes the information over a separate data link. The data link does not go from one switch to another directly, but instead each switch is linked to a control point (an STP, Signal Transfer Point) where a computer interprets the data and sends approriate commands to each switch involved in a particular connection. CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signaling) is AT&T's implementation of CCS. CCITT Signaling System No. 7 is the most recent CCS implementation. SS7 provides more information to the terminating end office and does more trunk testing before setting up a path. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 23:44:17 -0400 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers? Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Around here, they're called WX numbers, and they are of the form WX-xxxx, where the x are replaced by digits. Ask the operator for one. Due to the form of the number, there aren't many of them available. An 800 number is obviously preferred in most cases, but the railroad still has the old WX number to reach the Pecan (Palatka) operator. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner [Moderator's Note: There really doesn't need to be that many of them available since by whatever name, Zenith, Enterprise, or 'WX', they are purely local convention. All the prefix and four digit suffix do is describe the local telco's billing arrangement with some subscriber (not necessarily their own) somewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 27-OCT-1990 04:42:01.49 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls Carl Moore recently wrote about distinguishing "Call Forward" calls from regular toll calls on your phone bill. Some companies, New York Telephone for example, do indeed have indicators next to the call "item" (the line that says when/where the call was made). On your average NYTel bill, a Call-Forward will be represented by a " - ", and a Three-Way call will be represented by a " / ". (Since you obviously aren't charged for getting a call via Call-Waiting, there is no itemization for that...) I haven't seen one for Speed-Call, but that's probably not all too necessary. I've even noticed on NYTel, SNET, Pac*Bell and C&P Telephone (and probably others too) that if you make a Calling Card or other operator assisted call from certain hotels or hospitals, a "#" will appear next to that item. This doesn't seem to work for all hotels, though, perhaps only those which use AT&T's (or some Bell's) call-accounting service(s)? If you use AT&T, most BOCs will put a "*" (or is it a "C"?) next to a line where you called AT&T and asked for credit. BOCs may do this on their portion of the bill as well. Are there any others that I failed to mention? (There are about six symbols left unused. Maybe some BOC will figure out a use for them! :-) ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: There are several symbols the Bell telcos reserve for use by AT&T, since they do the billing for Mother. Some of the symbols indicate "Billed as part of Reach Out America, but here is what the price would be otherwise", "evening discount rate", etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #765 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22300; 27 Oct 90 19:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01223; 27 Oct 90 18:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31356; 27 Oct 90 17:00 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:54:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #766 BCC: Message-ID: <9010271654.ab16286@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:54:32 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 766 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Arrested Again! [TELECOM Moderator] Ouch! AOS/COCOT Call: 2 Mins, $4.27 [Jim Hickstein] Another Problem With Centrex [David Gast] Technology vs. the Telemarketers [Andy Behrens] Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Robert M. Hamer] Telemarketers: Keeping Them From Calling is Harder [Stan Brown] Anti-Slamming Regulations [Jordan Kossack] Odd (617) Number [Patrick Tufts] 800 Numbas [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:36:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Len Rose Arrested Again! I am sorry to report that Len Rose has been arrested again, and charged with 'computer tampering', a violation of state law here in Illinois. Readers of the Digest will recall earlier reports about Mr. Rose, beginning earlier this year. He was accused of various computer crimes in connection with Operation Sun Devil, the federal inquiry which also involved the editor of Phrack. Concurrent with his indictment on federal charges in Maryland earlier this year was a pending matter with the State of Virginia relating to theft of computer equipment from a warehouse where Mr. Rose claims some of his own equipment was being housed, which he states he was trying to recover. For more background on the federal case, I refer you to the Telecom Archives and the sub-directory therein entitled 'computer.security.issues'. The Archives is accessed via anonymous login at ftp lcs.mit.edu. In this most recent matter, Mr. Rose had moved with his wife and children to the Chicago suburb of Naperville, IL. He moved here to my area about three weeks ago, having been promised a job by a computer software company. He had been on his new job one week when he was accused of giving inappropriate commands to the computer, accessing files which it is claimed were none of his business. In addition, he was confronted by his superiors with a copy of a memo which had been circulating on Usenet claiming that Mr. Rose had sold stolen equipment to friends of the writer of the memo. On his final day of employment, Mr. Rose was visited by federal agent Tim Foley, the fellow who has been involved with much of the Operation Sun Devil investigation since the beginning. On the advice of his attorney, Mr. Rose declined to speak with Mr. Foley at the time. A day or two later, federal and local officers came to Mr. Rose's new residence in Naperville and conducted a raid, placing him under arrest based on charges filed by his new employer. Mr. Rose is now incarcerated in the DuPage County Jail, Wheaton, IL, where his bond was set at $50,000. Efforts by his attorney have gotten the bond reduced to $10,000. In the meantime, Mr. Rose's wife who speaks very little English and his small children are alone in Naperville, an unfamiliar community to them with no money and/or resources. He is not without counsel however; his friends and attornies are aware of his current situation and are trying to get him out of jail and get a factual and candid account of what happened. As Jim Thomas points out in the current issue of {Computer Underground Digest} something very strange is going on ... I refer you to the current issue of CuD for more specifics on this case. If you are a subscriber to CuD, you should have received an issue on Saturday morning with this story. If not, and you'd like to subscribe, then write the Moderators with your request: tk0jut2@niu.bitnet. Was this latest turn of events a 'set up' of some kind, or a conspiracy against Len Rose? It seems doubtful, yet if the new charges against him are true, then he must be a very self-destructive individual. Quite honestly, I was shocked to receive this report a few days agp from Jim Thomas (I promised not to publish it until he did), and I really don't know what to think. I do feel terribly sorry for his wife and children at this point, alone in a strange place without the resources they need for survival. It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges against him until they are proven in court. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 21:30:04 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Ouch! AOS/COCOT Call: 2 Mins, $4.27 *flame on* I have been reading in this Digest about the evils of COCOTs and AOSs (which I read with relish), but I haven't had the misfortune of being forced to use them, until now. Let the titans of telecom argue economics: this is a call to arms from one of the peons. I just got my phone bill for last month, covering a trip I made to Wisconsin and Minnesota. On my way back to Minneapolis from eastern Wisconsin I stopped in Chippewa Falls to call a friend who was expecting me in Minneapolis some time that afternoon. A six-hour trip by car has enough variability that I need to connect when I get toward the end of the trip. I did not have my cellular phone, and it probably wouldn't have worked in this small, rural town. Iridium is a few years away (and probably over my budget) so I had no choice: I had to use a public phone. I have done this a number of times over the years, but never even noticed what it cost me. It's about 80 miles, interstate, inter-LATA. No big deal, right? I knew there would be trouble, since I could not find a BOC coin phone. But I had the presence of mind to dial 00 and demand the name and address of the company responsible for what I knew would be an outrage. I don't remember the name, but they said they were in Neenah, Wisconsin. I didn't hear them identify themselves as AT&T or, for that matter, anyone I had ever heard of before in my life. I had a sinking feeling. I placed the call, and it went through, although the phone disabled the DTMF pad after it was convinced I was through with it. No problem, *this time*. 10xxx did not work. I do not *know* the 950-xxxx number for AT&T, and cannot reasonably be expected to know it. In fact, I cannot reasonably be expected to know 10288: only my exposure to this digest makes me one of the few who *do* know it. How carefully do you read all the inserts in your phone bill? (I mean normal people. :-) My grandmother, who once asked me what a satellite TVRO dish was, can barely be reasonably expected to know how to place a *pre-MFJ* DDD call. That's why there are operators, she says. It's hard to argue with that. This time, for two minutes during the day, (probably 1.01 minutes, but that's neither here nor there) using my Pacific*Bell Calling Card, it cost me --> $4.27 <--. This was on its own sheet bearing the logotype of the Operator Assistance Network (OAN). Pacific*Bell has a billing arrangement with them, evidently. Over $1.00 of that was a line item called "LOCAL TAX." Hmmm. Can you say "highway robbery"? Can you say "string the bast*rds up by their b*lls?" And I only do this once or twice a year! What about my brother, who travels extensively throughout five states? Granted, his employer bears the cost, but it's still my money if I buy their product. And it is absolutely unnecessary. This particular gas station has had BOC coin phones for *decades*. (I've been making this call for some time, now.) Clearly, they were *removed* to make way for the zero-armed bandit. "Greater public service." Sure. Tell me where to write, and write I shall. And raise Hell along the way. These things are a scam and should be AGAINST THE LAW. If people want to go into business in this society, they should fill a need in the marketplace, or expect to be out of business before long. I do not see how charging me what I figure to be 5 times the going rate for *anything* fills a need of mine. I equate this with organized crime. (Hmmm ... I wonder if there's an unusually high number of COCOTs outside pizza parlors. :-) Remember that TV ad a few years back where people came screaming out into the hallway of an office, holding pink telephones, with bare wires dangling, demanding the head of the responsible party on a plate? We need to do that with these things. *flame off* Sorry about that. I needed to get this off my chest. By the way, another such phone in rural western Wisconsin gave me so much grief that I finally commandeered the red 2500-set on top of the cash register, placed there for the credit transaction terminal's use, to make my call. I guess I sounded like I knew what I was talking about, because the cashier did not object once I assured him that it was a "credit card call." I'm afraid the irony was lost on him. :-) Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA jxh%attain.teradyne.com@apple.com ...!{amdcad!teda,sun!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:50:31 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Another Problem With Centrex It seems that another disadvantage to Centrex is that a bug is easier to place on a Centrex system than on a PBX system. Since calls local to the premises typically don't leave the premises with a PBX system, a bug would have to placed on the premises. With a Centrex system, all calls are routed through the CO and so a bug can be conveniently placed at the CO. This bug would be able to monitor all calls including those internal to the premises. Given the cozy relationship between law enforcement and the telcos, this problem is something to think about. David ------------------------------ From: Andy Behrens Subject: Technology vs. the Telemarketers Date: 26 Oct 90 18:29:08 GMT Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Are you too timid to say "no" to telemarketing calls? Sharper Image has just the thing for you -- a phone with built-in sound effects. "Time to hit one of the eight sound effects buttons on your new transparent phone from Fun Products. You press 'crying baby,' and both you and the caller hear the digitalized wail of a tiny tyke." Only $89. Andy Behrens uucp: {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb RFD 1, Box 116, East Thetford, Vt. 05043 (802) 649-1258 Burlington Coat, PO Box 729, Lebanon, N.H. 03766 (603) 448-5000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 10:48 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Telemarketers: Saying No is the Easy Part PAT (our esteemed Moderator) about telemarketers: >one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers >are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are >never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine >for screening first, etc. Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up). PAT] Hey, I'm not afraid to say no. In fact, I can get quite nasty -- I ask the caller for a supervisor and then ask the supervisor if I can have his/her phone number so I can call him/her at home to bother him/her. I use my answering machine to screen so I don't have to interrupt dinner to answer a telemarketer or wrong number, or get up from the living room to go to the foyer to answer. (Pat -- I may be a sort of telecom freak, but I only have five phones on the main line, and don't have one just under my hand while I sit in the living room.) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 12:05:00 EDT From: "CONTR BROWN,STAN" Subject: Telemarketers: Keeping Them From Calling is Harder Our esteemed Moderator, proving that even Jove nods occasionally, writes in <13946@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >[Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by >the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who >apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter >one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers >are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are >never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine >for screening first, etc. Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up). PAT] The problem is _not_ getting rid of them. It's the disruptions these unwanted calls cause. Either (1) You always answer your phone, which subjects you to numerous interruptions of daily (and nightly) activities, or (2) You answer the phone only when you're right next to it and not doing anything else, which means you may miss urgent calls and will certainly miss important ones. ("Hey Stan I just called to see if you wanted to go to the movies this afternoon but you're not home so I'll call somebody else bye.") What I want to know is, how is it that telemarketers always seem to know as soon as I run a sinkful of soapy water anmd start washing dishes? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 01:51:37 CDT From: Jordan Kossack Subject: Anti-Slamming Regulations In article <13795@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Patrick writes: - [Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting - the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact - requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx - code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default' - carrier, which might not be the carrier you want. To insure you get - the one you want, you can always dial 10xxx. So, the legal beagles say - you can sue the carrier who wrongfully took over the default on your - line, but they in turn can sue you for not paying for the calls they - handled for you. I guess it washes out. PAT] I wonder if anyone has tried to sue and if so, whether they won the case. I suppose the best course of action would be to: 1) Pay the bill but write "Paid under protest" or something similar on the check so they couldn't use the fact that you paid the bill as 'evidence' that you want their 'service'. 2) Sue the long distance carrier for the amount of the bill as well the cost of returning to your chosen carrier. In addition, sue for an even $1000 in punitive damages. This should keep the $$$ low enough that one can sue in small claims court, which means that you don't need a lawyer, although legal counsel IS useful at times. Heck, even if you lose the case, the revenge value of dragging them into court may be worth the effort. The real trick would to get an injunction to prevent them from providing your residence(s) with long distance service at ANY time in the future without your express written permission, although I guess THAT is too much to expect, right? ;-) jkoss00@ricevm1.rice.edu | Jordan Kossack | +1 713 799 2950 | n5qvi ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Odd (617) Number Date: 26 Oct 90 16:48:28 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept In the thread on 'finding your own number', someone mentioned that dialing 958 in NJ worked. I tried 958 in my area. No response, so I continued with 6544, the last digits of the calling phone's own number, to see if it was a ringback. The response: three quick chirps and a faint hum of electronics waiting for something. After a pause, I got a quick busy signal. Any thoughts on the function of this number, (617)958-6544? BTW - I got the same response with the same number from another phone. Pat ------------------------------ Subject: 800 Numbas Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:07:04 -0400 From: Steve Elias MCI's claim that they can give you an 800 number with the last seven digits being the same as your home phone # has got to be BS. MCI doesn't own all the 800 "exchanges", so there's no way they can assign the numbers as they say ... at least not for all customers. Also, doesn't their "security code" feature mean that people at pulse phones can't call? eli [Moderator's Note: Even if MCI *did* own all the 800 echanges, it should be easy to see the fallacy in their presentation: My home exchange 743 is duplicated in many area codes. If I got one of their 800 numbers, along with someone with the same number as mine in another area code, then what? If the security codes were not used properly by the caller, we'd wind up getting each other's calls. And what about my existing 800 number which begins 747? If a 747-subscriber somewhere signs up with MCI for 800 service, does this mean I now have to start using special codes to distinquish my calls from his? Steve is correct: someone at MCI got it *all* wrong! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #766 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23077; 27 Oct 90 20:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23041; 27 Oct 90 19:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01223; 27 Oct 90 18:04 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 17:33:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #767 BCC: Message-ID: <9010271733.ab03628@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Oct 90 17:33:41 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 767 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding [John Opalko] Re: Home 800 Service [Peter G. Capek] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Gordon Burditt] Re: Ancient ANI [Dave Levenson] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [David Pletcher] Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [Ken Abrams] Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" Subject: Re: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding Date: 26 Oct 90 01:19:58 GMT Reply-To: jgo@mcgp1.uucp Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle In article <13891@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 753, Message 1 of 6 >It >would be nice if this time I could refute that argument by giving them >a list of systems which are a bit more enlightened, and do not charge >airtime for call-forwarding. All of our markets (McCaw Cellular One) charge a monthly fee for the feature. These markets do not charge anything extra for call forwarding: Alaska Denver Kansas City Las Vegas Madison Minneapolis Oklahoma City Seattle Tulsa These markets charge a flat fee per forwarded call (typically 10 cents): Fort Smith Fresno Santa Barbara Ventura These markets charge a per-minute rate for forwarded calls (typically 7 to 10 cents per minute): Portland Salinas/Monterey Salt Lake City These markets charge airtime for conditional forwarding but not immediate forwarding: Austin Bryan/College Station Corpus Christi San Antonio Temple/Killeen These markets charge airtime for all forwarded calls: Indiana Little Rock Pittsburgh Reno Sacramento Santa Rosa Spokane Stockton/Modesto The reason for a call-forwarding charge (I guess; I'm a Unix hacker, not a billing type) is that the forwarding is not established at the Telco, but rather at the cellular switch. When you forward a call, there are *two* trunks in use between the zone office and the cellular switch, instead of just one. Our switch stays in the loop (acting as a sort-of tandem) until the call is ended. Therefore, the Telco charges us twice the rate that it would normally ("x" number of Erlangs on two trunks instead of one). The reason some markets charge for conditional (busy/no answer) call forwarding and not immediate is the switch has to page your mobile and, if you're in the service area (and powered up) and not busy, set up a voice channel and initiate ringing to see if you answer. If the switch gets no page response or no answer, the call has to be torn down and rerouted to your forwarding number. For immediate forwarding, the switch just has to see that your feature flag is set and reroute the call without using any of the cell-site trunks or RF equipment, i.e., it's cheaper. Whether charging the full airtime rate is reasonable or not, well, I'm not going to get into that. :-) Hope this helps, John Opalko McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. jgo@mcgp1.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 03:02:10 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: Home 800 Service Adam Gaffin quotes an MCI spokesman as explaining how their home 800 service works: "you just have to put an 800 in front of your home number.", and goes on to explain how eliminating the area code which makes the number unique is compensated for by a four-digit security code. a) Does this mean that customers of this service now have, in effect, a 14-digit phone number (800-762-xxxx Security: 4321), with a pause required in dialing, and explanation for most callers? b) Aren't 800-exchanges assigned to inter-exchange carriers in a static fashion? It is hard to see how MCI can make good their claim for more than a small fraction of potential customers: I believe AT&T has the lion's share of the assigned "exchanges", and many haven't been assigned. Peter G. Capek [Moderator's Note: As previous messages have pointed out, someone at MCI was out in left field in making the statements they did, assuming of course that Mr. Gaffin was quoting them correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Date: 21 Oct 90 23:51:42 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >Michael Glodek must feel like a million dollars today. He's the >landscaper who was building a new lawn for a home at 3521 Madison >Avenue in Oak Brook, IL on Monday morning when his digging machine >uprooted what Illinois Bell termed a 'very major, very important' part >of their interoffice network covering northern Illinois. What happens, financially, in a situation like this? Does the contractor or his liability insurance pay: for the cost of repairing the cable? for the overtime of people locating and routing around the cut? for the (not necessarily over-)time of people locating and routing around the cut? (allocated how?) for estimated lost revenue? (estimated how?) for lost revenue due to service guarantees and missed time-to-repair deadlines (especially common on business 800 numbers)? What happens if neither the cut nor other problems go over the downtime guarantee, but together they do? to area employers, for paying employees sent home due to inoperative phones? to MCI, for additional advertising to counter insults in ads by AT&T and/or Sprint? Does MCI get unlimited slamming rights on the contractor's phones ? :-) Would anything be different if it wasn't a contractor, but a homeowner digging a garden (pretty DEEP garden!) or trying to remove tree stumps, on his own property? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: That is the reason we have courts and judges, Gordon. The court will decide who pays for what, and how much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Date: 26 Oct 90 14:35:46 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <14027@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: > I sure hope the ten-digit limit isn't built into either the protocol or > the displays. While North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers are > ten digits if you strip off the country code, in general phone numbers > can be just about any length. Does anyone out there actually have a > working display? Is it limited to ten digits? The Caller*ID displays available retail in NJ have come in two varieties. Some of the early units had seven-digit displays. The ones offered today have a two-line display of about sixteen characters per line. They format the information with date, time, the words NEW or RPT, and such, and provide a ten-digit number display, with two dashes for punctuation: AAA-PPP-NNNN. (This refers to the box sold by Sears, with AT&T's name and logo on it, and made by a company in Connecticut whose name I cannot remember right now!) 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: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Date: 26 Oct 90 16:24:22 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <14004@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes... >In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred >R. Goldstein) writes: >> >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >> >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >> >the system must pay for local calls? >It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have >residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates. >It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the >outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups. Now we're getting down to interesting details. Is it within the capabilities of System 75 to separate residential from toll traffic? Can YOUR campus save megabucks? I ran into this several years ago while consulting to a local college which I shall not name, except to say that they did not implement my suggestions for residential service even though they bought the "right" PBX. On some PBXs, the automatic route selection interacts with the toll restriction thusly: Take first choice route, If available, use it; if access restricted, REORDER If first choice not available or access restricted, iterate for second and third choice routes, etc. AT&T's then-extant switches, Dimension and S/85, worked that way. I suspect that S/75 does too (both S/75 and S/85 are now labeled "Definity"). So if you can't use the cheapest trunk you can't use the next-cheapest. Makes sense in a business, right? Now let's look at the way the SL-1 does it. Take first choice route. If available, use it; if not OR access restricted, Iterate for second and third choice routes. Note that classmark restriction doesn't cause reorder, just a continued scan for more choices. IF the first choice group for local calls is a RESIDENTIAL tariff, and if all BUSINESS (non-dorm) lines are restricted from reaching it, then business calls will overflow to the second choice, the business-tariff local lines. That keeps the residential lines uncontaminated. Of course, you can restrict the residential phones from the overflow (business) groups too, to avoid cost, though it's not a tariff requirement. FWIW, the Rolm technique is rather different but ends up working more like the SL-1 than the S/85. And for all I know, AT&T may have fixed this; I did the above research in 1984. 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: David Pletcher Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA Date: 26 Oct 90 18:30:41 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 In article <14014@accuvax.nwu.edu> gkj@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gregory K Johnson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 762, Message 7 of 13 >AT&T College & University Systems has a brain-damaged computer that >does this also when it asks you for your account number. >But what was most galling was that when I called back and waited for >an operator, the operator couldn't look up my account number! >This is one of many tales of woe with ACUS. In my opinion their >service is completely incompetent. Another particularly annoying feature of ACUS is that great AT&T itself is charging based on a timeout rather than answer supervision. In the literature we got with our cards it warns us that we will be charged for our call if we let it ring more than five times. To further complicate matters, our campus PBX is set up badly so that you cannot reliably hang up when you want to. Often the phone starts ringing again after a few seconds, and when you pick it up you hear your outgoing call in progress (which you are now being charged for after the fifth ring.) In light of recent messages which said that uncompleted interstate calls cannot be charged, I am thinking about taking this up with the FCC. It sounds like ACUS does not believe in echo-cancellation either; when I make outgoing long distance calls it sounds like I am calling from inside a cave to both parties. When I am called by others I do not have this problem. I have spent quite a long time on the phone with AT&T people and campus phone service people; neither will accept responsibility or even claim to understand what I am talking about. I really expected better from AT&T. David Pletcher dpletche@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town Date: 26 Oct 90 17:23:12 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <13963@accuvax.nwu.edu> heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: >Once I found out (from my home town police) that my home phone was out >of order, I figured that I'd report it to IBT repair, in case my wife >didn't think to use the modem line to do so. Here's where things >started getting really interesting. [Very long and sad story deleted] Although I am not in a policy making position in my company, I DO care. Ron's story is pathetic. Things like this should never happen. Pat was correct that there is a 7(10) digit regular number that will connect you with Repair Service. Now all I have to do is convince the DA staff to change their proceedures to give it out in situations like this. I don't _think_ that will be too hard to do. If a solution is found, I will post it. Either way, I will drop Ron some mail (assuming that the address contained in his original post is a good one). I have forwarded a copy of Ron's message to the DA staff folks (minus his name); I hope that is OK. His words will likely carry more impact than if I tried to translate the story. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: I know the number, as does Tamkin and a few other Chicago area Digest readers. I did not include the number in the posting because I am not sure IBT wants it published. Thanks for passing it along, Ken. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information Date: 27 Oct 90 02:06:51 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13914@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre > recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both > the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple > incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same > time. Many multi-line answering machines even back in the 'old' days had either of two schemes. The cheaper one was to 'barge-in' if the message was already playing, and let you hear at least one complete version before cutting you off. The slightly better version had a phased entry, and had the same message playing maybe in four different phases. Your call got answered only when the next available phase started and EVERYONE else starting with you all heard the same signal from the same amplifier which came out at some good level and went through a pad towards each line. If the sound source failed, and between words, this kept everyone from chatting to each other. The modern digital, often PC based, machine can handle MANY lines, understands Touch Tone, and could easily be setup to responsively give anyone whatever individual information they needed, each with a unique 'playing' of the digital voice. The typical auto-attendant / voice mail box would also make a GOOD theater machine, and I even think a SMART local theater might also list the competing EXPENSIVE adjacent big town theaters as a service and customers would always call them for ALL movie info and would probably go to the local one mostly anyway. If you want CO grade stuff, DIGICEPT makes 'nice' machines that can do HUNDREDS of lines even over MANY COs from a central machine. They can take T1 trunking in, too. They have cards that do time and temperature automatically. I think they just got 'gobbled' by Audicron - a former competitor. Cook, now gobbled by NTI, also used to make telco grade announce machines. For the local theater, the PC based solution should be fine. Most COs and some PBXs have never busy numbers that anyone calling connects to. These are often used for volunteer fire (whistle blows - everyone dials in to see where to go) and for hospital code 99 teams. These are "all chat" lines, and that isn't what the theater needs. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #767 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25172; 27 Oct 90 23:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02510; 27 Oct 90 22:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23010; 27 Oct 90 21:08 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 20:15:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #768 BCC: Message-ID: <9010272015.ab01829@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Oct 90 20:15:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 768 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [TELECOM Moderator] To ACD or to VRU (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) [Kevin Collins] Amplified Handsets [Barton F. Bruce] Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Bob Yasi] One Check, Many Numbers [Ole J. Jacobsen] Wanted: Home Phone System [Michael Dorl] Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [Max Southall] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley] Re: Telco "Customer Service" [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Cable Breaks [Floyd Davidson] Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Marc T. Kaufman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 19:19:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind It is that day again: the day when folks in the United States set our clocks back one hour, to make up for the one hour advancement we made in April. Sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning, move your clocks back an hour to resume *Standard* time. The official changeover time is 2:00 AM Sunday morning local time, of course. For a curious, yet quite accurate rendition of the correct time, try calling 1-202-653-1800 Sunday morning at 1:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time ... after the talking clock reaches 1:59:50 Eastern Daylight Time, it will tell you the time is 1:00:00 Eastern Standard Time ... never missing a beat, or a tick-tock as it were. I was asked once if a telephone call beginning at 1:59 AM on the final day of daylight time which ended three minutes later at 1:02 AM on the first day of standard time would be charged for three minutes; 23 hours and three minutes or not at all. Or, would they give you credit for the 57 minutes you were NOT on the phone that hour. :) I explained that it was set up to compensate for calls which covered the same time period on the last Sunday morning in April, when callers were charged for one hour and three minutes. :) In any event, do slow down and stay in step with the rest of us, starting Sunday morning at 2:00 AM *whatever* time zone you are in. To set computer clocks: 1-202-653-0351 1200 baud (NAVOSBY) 1-202-494-4774 1200 baud (National Bureau of Standards) For a voice rendition: 1-202-653-1800 If you don't want to pay a premium 1-900-410-TIME If you don't mind paying a little extra Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: To ACD or to VRU (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) Date: 25 Oct 90 23:56:45 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In article <13815@accuvax.nwu.edu>, fozzie!stanley@uu.psi.com (John Stanley) writes: > [stuff about large book-o-month club having customer-hostile ACD, > requiring customer to make 3 calls, "stupidity of one-item ACD's", > club's $5k box putting all calls in one basket, no "direct incoming > line to customer support", etc. Mr. Stanley's conclusion: general > public won't grasp total (bad) picture and won't complain.] I agree with most of your points, but I just wanted to clarify a few things. First of all, if this company has a "true" ACD system and is only using it as you describe, said company wasted a *large* amount of money!! ACD's cost far more than $5K - a small ACD could easily cost around $100K. The system you describe sounds more like a Voice Response Unit, which is much less expensive than an ACD and doesn't provide a lot in the way of call routing features. Also, to paraphrase another contributor to this forum, harassing the poor salescritter won't do you any good! It is unlikely that an ACD agent understands how calls get routed; it's entirely possible that the agent's supervisor will not completely understand how the calls are routed through the entire system. So, perhaps I should rephrase my original statement: if you don't like how ABC company handles your incoming calls, complain to *somebody who can change it.* Kevin Collins | Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | San Jose, CA Voice: +1 408 441 2489 | My opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Amplified Handsets Date: 27 Oct 90 00:07:41 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13941@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nol2105%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@ dsac.dla.mil (Robert E. Zabloudil) writes: > would have cost, if they were even obtainable. As a side note, she > had to give up a promotion with her employer because they could not > get a good volume-control phone to work with their el-cheapo system. If you are still looking, AT&T has a special 800 number for all sorts of 'special' hardware for folks with special needs. Also, Walker, a long time maker of amplified handsets, was bought up by Pacific Plantronics quite awile ago, and, even if a Walker regular shaped handset could not work with the 'el-cheapo' system, I bet a Plantronics operator type headset WILL. The have a FAT listing of what to order to work with almost ANY handset jack equipped phone, and you could get a headset that is amplified. BTW, I think there IS an FCC rule about handset ear pieces HAVING to be hearing aid compatible. Some sort of hearing aid like device would then function with any compliant handset. ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" Date: 27 Oct 90 23:39:37 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles Whenever I get a mouthy voice mail system I just dial "O". It gets me a human more than half the time and I believe this is likely to become a de facto standard. I certainly complain to whatever human comes on the line -- once I divinate the bizarre touchtone incantation required to reach one. "How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator when you dial O?" I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one! -- Bob Yazz -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 1990 10:37:30 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: One Check, Many Numbers Since I am in the process of moving and trying to administer my phone lines in a "transitional" manner, I get no less than six (6) bills each month. I have found that simply adding them all up, putting them in one envelope, sending one check, and filling in the "enter amount paid" box on each slip does the trick great with Pac*Bell. 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: "Michael (NMI" Subject: Wanted: Home Phone System Date: 27 Oct 90 13:03:31 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center I'm interested in updating my home phones. I want something that can handle at least two phone lines, six instruments, has hold, and inter-instrument signaling (ringing), and intercomm. I've seen some ads for some two line phones that have some of these features but I worry about continued availability of the instruments. I wonder if anyone builds a centralized system. I guess what I have in mind is a black box that connects between the phone company lines and the instruments in the house. It should provide the following... use standard single line instruments allow one to put a call on hold allow one to select a phone line allow one to ring another (or all) instrument allow one to specify default association between line and instrument. Used for outgoing calls and for ringing. Other nice things... connect multiple phone lines for party calls provide line in use and hold information relay outputs distinctive ring for inter-instrument signaling and to differentiate different incoming lines would be nice. I'd be willing to bring all of the instruments into the system separately. The * and # touchtone keys could be used for control. Anybody know of such a gadget? 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 [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like a small residential PBX would be what you need. A couple manufacturers which come to mind are Rolm and Melco. The latter makes a unit which accomodates two central office lines and up to twelve extensions. Single line phones are used, and most things are controlled from the touchtones on the phone including station to station dialing. There are other makers of similar equipment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Max Southall Subject: Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 05:29:26 GMT Well ... I know that it is downright difficult if not de facto impossible for non-resident aliens to obtain credit in this country. What with the effect of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act (!) it is not likely that there can be an appeal made on the basis of non-discrimin- ation. In reality, non-U.S. citizens are not entitled to the same legal guarantees as resident aliens or citizens. ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 19:22:51 GMT In article <14002@accuvax.nwu.edu> hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >It is a fairly well-known and well-documented feature that if you have >BOTH Three-Way Calling and Call-Waiting that you can disable Call >Waiting by doing a hook-flash, *70. I do not have three-way calling. The only option I have is call-waiting. *70 works for me! Vance [Moderator's Note: Assuming *70 is implemented in your CO, it will always work as the first digits dialed on a call you originate. The trick is being able to decide to turn it on the middle of a conversation, or during a conversation you did not originate. You *cannot* turn it on in mid-conversation or on calls you receive unless you have three way calling, or some other valid reason for flashing the hook. (I don't know of any except to add another call). Instead of adding the call, however, you can then dial *70 and be immediatly returned to the call in progress, but with your call waiting suspended for the duration. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" Date: 26 Oct 90 23:57:16 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13940@accuvax.nwu.edu>, oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: > implementation of TT. The town is still on the old (circa 1950?) > rotary switch. Of course it can't handle TT in any way, right? > What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the > input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and > could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it From about the start of TT there have been various converters for steppers. Many simply bolted to the frame behind the linefinders. Mitel made a "QuadPak" that took four cards, and later, as TT decoding got more compact their old #1625 cards zillions of which plugged into these, were upgraded to newer models that could do two lines per card. Actually the card space could by then do even more, but there were only card edge connections enough for one more line in the vast installed base of boxes. TelTone and others also made such devices, and their cards would slide into Mitel boxes, too. Another popular trick, rather than having a TT decoder per linefinder, was to have a few decoders, and some sort of allocater circuit between the linefinder and first selector. In 'slenderised' offices, something 'smart' was stuck in that location anyway, to possibly alter what you dialed into what was needed to transit the selectors. Such a box could have TT added easily. The bummer is that they don't always drop off the line. They are supposed to quit on a timer, or on answer supervision, but if they don't and you need to TT to the far end, try # or occasionally * to disable the decoder. With residential TT $s on the rise here in MA, I have been considering digging out some old 1625s I have stashed away. They ARE strappable for 48 or 24 v dc, and for 10 or 20 PPS. At 20 pps (which any xbar or electronic offic should be able to use), the delay is barely noticable. Anyone know of a really good but cheap TT-> pulse converter that properly deals with ALL the many problems? I havn't looked at that market in years, but with the chips now available, there just might be something in the < one year of TT service price range. LECs charging for TT deserve to lose the revenue. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Cable Breaks Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 10:56:05 GMT In article <14040@accuvax.nwu.edu> Steve Gaarder Some 15 or so years ago, a local farmer cut the main cable that > [ good story deleted ] >The following is a story I heard once, and may be just another legend: > [ even better story deleted ] The above reminded me of an old chuckle. At the risk of turning this into comp.humor.telecom, here is another story: Once upon a time my job location was in the same building, in fact in the same room, as the military owned and operated DMS-100 switch at Eielson AFB just south of Fairbanks. I don't work there anymore because of a few things I explained to a security cop one day, but thats not this story. The Inside Plant people had a Civil Serpent, a retired AF fellow who had been Inside Plant NCO In Charge there for several years before retiring, so he knew the place better than anyone they had. Darn nice guy too, though he was a bit *too* proud of his curly hair. One day they added a new 300 pair cable between a bay of jacks and the CDF, which this fellow proceeded to tie down on the frame blocks. But unknown to him the younger fellows had pulled back the end of the cable and replaced it with about six feet of stub that had been chopped off as excess. They carefully hid the end of it in the cable rack, and stripped the end of every single wire in that cable, wrapped them together and tied 'em to a 48 volt tap. 48 volts dc won't hurt you, but you *can* feel it if you work enough to perspire a bit and have nice wet salty hands. It's a very irritating tingle. He checked the other end of that cable about 50 times, and even split the binders and spread it out, before they told him he was tieing down the wrong cable. (The young fellows removed the wrong pairs and wired the whole thing.) (And that guy's hair is straighter now, too.) Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 21:05:17 GMT In article <14050@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Barton F. Bruce" writes: >A 1A2 key system is the electronic replacement for the 1a1 all relay >ones that preceeded them. This is a relatively simple system that >typically has a KSU supporting 4, 6, or 13 cards. Each card is wired >in series with T+R going to the phones. The card does several things. >It can detect ringing and start a local interrupter (to have ringing >and lamp flashing for many lines all in step) and connect the flashing >lamp service to the lamp lead for that line. Ah, yes. Long ago another engineer and myself used to go into the basement of the radio station we worked at, and manually engage the relays. We would set up ring on some or all ten lines, then put a few on hold. This was at 2 AM, and the night DJ thought he was the only one in the building. We could hear him crashing about all over the building, trying to find who was using the phones. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #768 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14303; 28 Oct 90 23:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29397; 28 Oct 90 22:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12413; 28 Oct 90 10:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01914; 28 Oct 90 9:17 CST Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 9:01:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #769 BCC: Message-ID: <9010280901.ab14807@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:01:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 769 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [TELECOM Moderator] Re: NJ Bell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Dave Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 8:23:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS. Brochures in the mail with our bills and newspaper advertisements have told us about the wonderful new services soon to be offered. It was just a question, they said, of waiting until your central office had been converted. The new features being offered here are: *66 Auto Call Back: Call back the last number which called you. No need to know the number. *69 Repeat Dial: If the number you dialed was busy, punching this will keep trying the number for up to 30 minutes, and advise you when it can connect. *60 Call Screening Enter: # plus number to be screened out plus # * plus number to be re-admitted plus * # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the last call you received, whether or not you know the number. 1 To play a list of the numbers being screened. 0 For a helpful recording of options, etc. Distinctive Ringing Up to ten numbers can be programmed in. When a call is received from one of these numbers, your phone will give a special ring to advise you. Multi-Ring Service Two additional numbers can be associated with your number. When someone dials one of these two numbers, your phone will give a special ring. With both Distinctive Ringing and Multi-Ring Service, if you have Call Waiting, the Call Waiting tones will be different from the norm also, so that you can tell what is happening. With Multi-Ring Service, you can have it programmed so the supplementary numbers associated with your main number are forwarded when it is forwarded, or do not observe forwarding, and 'ring through' despite what the main number is doing. Alternate Answer Can be programmed so that after 3-7 rings, the unanswered call will be automatically sent to another line *WITHIN YOUR CENTRAL OFFICE*. If the number assigned as an alternate is itself busy or forwarded OUTSIDE YOUR OFFICE then Alternate Answer will not forward the call and continue to ring unanswered. Transfer on Busy/ This is just another name for 'hunt'. The No Answer difference is that hunt is free; Transfer on Busy/NA costs a couple bucks per month. Like Alternate Answer, it must forward only to a number on the same switch. Unlike hunt, it will work on NA as well. Unlike Alternate Answer, it works on busy as well. Caller*ID will be available 'eventually' they say. Now my story begins: From early this summer to the present, I've waited patiently for CLASS to be available in Chicago-Rogers Park. Finally a date was announced: October 15 the above features would be available. In mid-September, I spoke with a rep in the Irving-Kildare Business Office. She assured me *all* the above features would be available on October 15. My bill is cut on the 13th of each month, and knowing the nightmare of reading a bill which has had changes made in mid-month (page after page of pro-rata entries for credits on the old service, item by item; pro-rata entries for the new service going in, etc) it made sense to implement changes on the billing date, to keep the statement simple. She couldn't write the order for the service to start October 13, since CLASS was not officially available until the fifteenth. Well, okay, so its either wait until November 13 or go ahead and start in mid-month, worrying about reading the bill once it actually arrives. I've been ambivilent about CLASS since it is not compatible with my present service 'Starline', but after much thought -- and since all installation and order-writing on Custom Calling features is free now through December 31! -- I decided to try out the new stuff. She took the order Wednesday afternoon and quoted 'sometime Thursday' for the work to be done. In fact it was done -- or mostly done -- by mid-afternoon Thursday. But I should have known better. I should have remembered my experience with Starline three years ago, when it took a technician in the central office *one week* to get it all in and working correctly. Still, I took IBT's word for it. I got home about 5:30 PM Thursday. *You know* I sat down right away at the phone to begin testing the new features! :) The lines were to be equipped as follows: Line 1: Call Waiting Line 2: Call Forwarding Three Way Calling Speed Dial 8 Call Forwarding Busy Repeat Dialing *69 Speed Dial 8 Auto Call Back *66 (second line used mostly by modem; Busy Repeat Dialing *69 so Call Waiting undesirable) Call Screening *60 Alternate Answer (supposed to be programmed to Voice Mail; another CO; another area code [708]; even another telco [Centel]). Busy Repeat Dialing did not work on the second line (not installed) and Alternate Answer worked (but not as I understood it would) on the first line. Plus, I had forgotten how to add 'last call received' to the screening feature. It is 5:45 ... business office open another fifteen minutes ... good! I call 1-800-244-4444 which is IBT's idea of a new way to handle calls to the business office. Everyone in the state of Illinois calls it, and the calls go wherever someone is free. Before, we could call the business office in our neighborhood direct ... no longer. I call; I go on hold; I wait on hold five minutes. Finally a rep comes on the line, a young fellow who probably Meant Well ... After getting the preliminary information to look up my account, we begin our conversation: Me: You see from the order the new features put on today? Him: Yes, which ones are you asking about? Me: A couple questions. Explain how to add the last call received to your call screening. Him: Call screening? Well, that's not available in your area yet. You see, it will be a few months before we offer it. Me: Wait a minute! It was quoted to me two days ago, and it is on the order you are reading now is it not? [I read him the order number to confirm we had the same one.] Him: Yes, it is on here, but it won't work. No matter what was written up. Really, I have to apologize for whoever would have taken your order and written it there. Me: Hold on, hold on! It *is* installed, and it *is* working! I want to know how to work it. Him: No it is not installed. The only features we can offer you at at this time are Busy Redial and Auto Callback. Would you like me to put in an order for those? Me: Let's talk to the supervisor instead. Him: (in a huff) Gladly sir. Supervisor comes on line and repeats what was said by the rep: Call Screening is not available at this time in Chicago-Rogers Park. At this point I am furious ... Me: Let me speak to the rep who took this order (I quoted her by name.) Supervisor: I never heard of her. She might be in some other office. Me: (suspicious) Say, is this Irving-Kildare? Supervisor: No! Of course not! I am in Springfield, IL. Me: Suppose you give me the name of the manager at Irving-Kildare then, and I will call there tomorrow. (By now it was 6 PM; the supervisor was getting figity and nervous wanting to go home.) Supervisor: Here! Call this number tomorrow and ask for the manager of that office, 1-800-244-4444. Me: Baloney! Give me the manager's direct number! Supervisor: Well okay, 312-xxx-xxxx, and ask for Ms. XXXX. Me: (suspicious again) She is the manager there? Supervisor: Yes, she will get you straightened out. Goodbye! Comes Friday morning, I am on the phone a few minutes before 9 AM, at the suggested direct number. Ms. XXXX reviewed the entire order and got the Busy Repeat Dial feature added to line two ... but she insisted the original rep was 'wrong for telling you call screening was available ..' and the obligatory apology for 'one of my people who mislead you'. I patiently explained to her also that in fact call screening was installed and was working. Manager: Oh really? Are you sure? Me: I am positive. Would you do me a favor? Call the foreman and have him call me back. Manager: Well, someone will call you later. Later that day, a rep called to say that yes indeed, I was correct. It seems they had not been told call screening was now available in my office. I told her that was odd, considering the rep who first took the order knew all about it. I asked when the Alternate Answer 'would be fixed' (bear in mind I thought it would work outside the CO, which it would not, which is why it kept ringing through to me instead of forwarding.) She thought maybe the foreman could figure that out. Maybe an hour later, a techician did call me to say he was rather surprised that call screening was working on my line. He gave a complete and concise explanation of how Alternate Answer and Transfer on Busy/No Answer was to work. He offered to have it removed from my line since it would be of no value to me as configured. One question he could not answer: How do you add the last call received to call screening? He could find the answer nowhere, but said he would see to it I got 'the instruction booklet' in the mail soon, so maybe I could figure it out myself. I got busy with other things, and put the question aside ... until early Saturday morning when I got one of my periodic crank calls from the same number which has plagued me for a couple months now with ring, then hangup calls on an irregular basis. For the fun of it, I punched *69, and told the sassy little girl who answered the phone to quit fooling around. She was, to say the least, surprised and startled by my call back. I don't think I will hear from her again. :) But I decided to ask again how to add such a number to call screening, so I called Repair Service. The Repair Service clerk pulled me up on the tube *including the work order from two days earlier* and like everyone else said: Repair: You don't have Call Screening on your line. That is not available yet in your area. We are adding new offices daily, blah, blah. I *couldn't believe* what I was hearing ... I told her I did, and she insisted I did not ... despite the order, despite what the computer said. Finally it was on to her supervisor, but as it turned out, her supervisor was the foreman on duty for the weekend. Like the others, he began with apologies for how I 'had been misinformed' ... no call screening was available. Me: Tell ya what. You say no, and I say yes. You're on the test board, no? I'll hang up. You go on my line, dial *60, listen to the recording you hear, then call me back. I will wait here. Take your time. When you call back, you can apologize. Foreman: Well, I'm not on the test board, I'm in my office on my own phone. Me: So go to the test board, or pick me up in there wherever it is handy and use my line. Make a few calls. Add some numbers to the call screening; then call me back with egg on your face, okay? Foreman: Are you saying call screening is on your line and you have used it? Me: I have used it. Today. A few minutes ago I played with it. Foreman: I'll call you back. (Fifteen mionutes later) ... Foreman: Mr. Townson! Umm ... I have been with this company for 23 years. I'll get to the point: I have egg on my face. Not mine really, but the company has the egg on the face. You are correct; your line has call screening. Me: 23 years you say? Are you a member of the Pioneers? Foreman: (surprised) Why, uh, yes I am. Me: Fine organization isn't it ... Foreman: Yes, it certainly is. You know of them? Me: I've heard a few things. Foreman: Look, let me tell you something. I did not know -- nor *did anyone in this office know* that call screening was now available. We were told it was coming, that's all. Me: You mean no one knew it was already in place? Foreman: No, apparently not ... I think you are the only customer in the Rogers Park office who has it at this time. Because the assumption was it was not yet installed, the reps were told not to take orders for it ... I do not know how your order slipped through. Me: Will you be telling others? Foreman: I have already made some calls, and yes, others will be told about this on Monday. Me: Well, you know the *81 feature to turn call screening on and off is still not working. Foreman: I'm not surprised. After all, none of it is supposed to be working right now. You seem to know something about this business, Mr. Townson. Me: I guess I've picked up a few things along the way. We then chatted about the Transfer on Busy/No Answer feature. I asked why, if my cell phone on 312-415-xxxx had the ability to transfer calls out of the CO and be programmed/turned on and off from the phone itself, my wire line could not. 312-415 is out of Chicago-Congress ... he thought it might have to do with that office having some different generics than Rogers Park ... but he could not give a satisfactory answer. So if there are any openings in the Telephone Pioneers, they ought to select me! :) I seem to be first with CLASS in Rogers Park; I was one of the first with Starline when it became available a few years ago (and they had a hard time programming me back then also!); I suspect I was one of the first people to have touch-tone service when I got it back in the early sixties. Indeed, getting CLASS has been a fun experience. A week or so from now if I think of it, I'll let you know of any further developments in the saga. Ken Abrams, perhaps you'd like to pass this message along to folks also. If they want to chat, they can find my number and call me. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) Date: 27 Oct 90 12:41:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA NJ Bell, like many entrenched beaurocracies, seems to employ a number of people whose initial reaction to any trouble report is a quick search of the 'standard responses' database for a reply that avoids responsibility for the problem. I have been a computer and communications consultant in NJ for more than ten years. I am always hearing about some trouble, probably caused by CO mis-administration or outside plant mis-arrangements. NJ Bell repair service is very good at trying to convince the customer that their equipment, or their use of their service, is at fault. If I have explain the situation to the repair service call-taker more than once and they still do not agree that NJ Bell needs to take some action to relieve the trouble, I usually find it's best to agree with them, and politely excuse myself from the conversation, and hang up. Wait ten minutes, and call again. There are also enough good, well-intentioned, and even technically competent people there that you stand a reasonable chance of reaching one of them on the next call. (I sometimes luck out and reach one of these helpful types on the first call!) It often takes more than one call to get telco trouble fixed in NJ, but it seldom seems to take more than two. Their customer-contact people operate under the assumption that anybody not employed by NJ Bell cannot possibly know anything about their network. A technical explanation of the problem, and of why you believe it's 'their problem' is sometimes required to convince them that you know what you're talking about. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #769 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14339; 28 Oct 90 23:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29397; 28 Oct 90 22:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23189; 28 Oct 90 11:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12413; 28 Oct 90 10:28 CST Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 9:41:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #770 BCC: Message-ID: <9010280941.ab04739@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:40:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 770 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? [Dave Levenson] Re: Technology vs. the Telemarketers [Frederick Roeber] Re: "Dedicated" Phone Lines [Jack Winslade] Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Andy Jacobson] Re: 800 Numbas [David Lesher] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley] Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls [Dave Levenson] Two Locations With Same Number [Tom Maszerowski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Date: 26 Oct 90 23:26:55 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer > supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about > it. ... So PBX users suffer. Maybe the FCC will > eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far. Everyone writing to their DPUs requesting they allow alternate local telcos should also emphasize that any such should be required to provide answer supervision. Any IXC will give you answer supervision these days, and I would have thought that ANY school of even modest size has enough traffic to justify at least a T1 to some IXC's POP. The feature group D trunks at the far end of most calls give them the supervision from the completing IEC. Of course calls to some few locations WON't return normal answer supervision, so some sort of timer may have to be used, too. When you so bypass the IEC for LD traffic, be sure to let them know that their LACK of answer supervision was an additional incentive to NOT go through their switch. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? Date: 27 Oct 90 12:55:45 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <14044@accuvax.nwu.edu>, slr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Rhoades) writes: > This question is primarily targeted for those of you with Caller*ID. > Since the FSK Caller*ID data is sent between the first and second > rings, I was wondering if it's possible to actually hear it using a > butt set in the monitor position. Or for that matter, any kind of > monitor that wouldn't produce and "off hook" condition. Yes. Caller*ID, when monitored with a butt-set in on-hook monitor mode, sounds like a simplex FSK modem (remember the old 202 dataset?) between the first and second ring. When NJ Bell shut off the feature on one of our lines by mistake, I told their craftsperson (who called and told me that my display unit was at fault) that I was unable to hear the 'modem-like tone' after the first ring with a butt-set. He tried it. He then believed me. The service was restored within the hour. > On a related note, can someone point me to the specs on demodulating > this data ? It's probably in a BSTJ somewhere. (remember BSTJs ?) Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000030: "SPCS Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface" This describes the modulation, bit rate, signal levels, and the rest of the 'physical layer' of the interface. Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000031: "CLASS Feature: Calling Number Delivery" This describes the message format, coding, and in general, the application and presentation layers of the interface. These and other Bellcore documents may be ordered by calling (908) 699-5802. (Have a credit card ready!) 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: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: Technology vs. the Telemarketers Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 27 Oct 90 17:24:34 PST In article <14061@accuvax.nwu.edu>, andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens) writes: > Are you too timid to say "no" to telemarketing calls? Sharper Image > has just the thing for you -- a phone with built-in sound effects. > $89 Sheesh. My little freon air-horn cost a lot less than that.. On a *completely* *different* topic -- are there any laws regulating just how loud one can be on the phone? I would think that the telephones, at least the original AT&T ones, just wouldn't put too large an amplitude on the line. But I thought I'd ask ... Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@vxcern.cern.ch r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: +41 22 767 5373 [Moderator's Note: You can be loud enough that it is a real annoyance to the unsuspecting person on the other end. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 02:06:50 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: "Dedicated" Phone Lines Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <19 Oct 90 12:28:28>, Roy Smith writes: > When I was a kid growing up in New York (1960's) there were >green boxes on lamp posts containg phones with which you could call >the police. You didn't have to dial, just lift the handset. Anybody >know exactly what these were? Leased ring-down lines from NYTel or >private wires actually owned by the police department? And where did >they ring-down to? The nearest precinct house, or some pre-911 >central location? I remember those phones well. The only time I had to use one (back around 1970 -- and yes, I was quite aware of phone 'nuances' back then) was when I almost was part of a massive pileup on East River Drive. The phone was on a post right in the median, and coincidentally right outside my car door where I was forced to stop. I'm sure it was a dedicated circuit. I remember that by the time I got the receiver to my ear, it was answered on the other end. It may have been answered at the precinct level or district level, since the guy knew exactly where I was and what I was talking about. It also sounded like a very short direct loop. This was during the time that 911 was being phased in. At the time, 911 took forever to answer. I remember a conversation with a cop at the time who said (off the record, of course) that the 911 system as it existed then was a big joke. He said that if it was urgent, call it in directly or else ring the operator. There were a lot of things happening with the phone system in NYC at that time. As I said, 911 was new and had bugs, there was a massive effort to convert as many pay phones as possible to dial-tone-first operation, what they called 'Extended DDD' or zero-plus LD calling was being introduced, and Touch-Tone service was being introduced, although very few offices could handle it at the time. (Do I dare mention the PicturePhone fisaco? ;-) Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS -- Happy 15th., RHPS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 04:16 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems In V10, #765, "Barton F. Bruce" responds to drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)): >If the A-A1 connection is broken BUT >the current is still flowing from Tip to Ring, the line card knows you >want to go on hold (things are in this state when you have the hold >button bottomed). The card immediately switches a 135 ohm 5 watt >(typical) resistor across T+R to simulate a phone off hook to hold the >line up. So, if that is all there is, where would this resistor be on a 400D, 400G or 400H card? Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold circuit? That would certainly be alot cheaper and less trouble than buying one of those adaptor kits that companys like Tellabs sells. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 800 Numbas Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 8:06:08 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers |MCI's claim that they can give you an 800 number with the last seven |digits being the same as your home phone # has got to be BS. |[Moderator's Note: Even if MCI *did* own all the 800 echanges, it |should be easy to see the fallacy in their presentation: My home |exchange 743 is duplicated in many area codes. Who says how LONG the number is? 1-800 MCIHOME {tone} yxzx 743-1923 would do just as they say ... and NOT use up big chunks of the NPA. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 08:32:19 GMT In article <14082@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator comments: >[Moderator's Note: Assuming *70 is implemented in your CO, it will >always work as the first digits dialed on a call you originate. The >trick is being able to decide to turn it on the middle of a >conversation, or during a conversation you did not originate. You >*cannot* turn it on in mid-conversation or on calls you receive unless >you have three way calling, or some other valid reason for flashing >the hook. (I don't know of any except to add another call). Instead of >adding the call, however, you can then dial *70 and be immediatly >returned to the call in progress, but with your call waiting suspended >for the duration. PAT] I recieve dialtone from a DMS in Bell Canada land. (519)741-XXXX. I subscribe to call-waiting and nothing else. I can flash and receive recall dial tone during any call. If I flash on an incoming call and dial *70 I am cut through to the existing call. Call waiting is disabled for the remaining duration of the call. Vance Shipley vances@ltg [Moderator's Note: Well, yours is the only instance I've heard of where one can flash and get dial tone without having three way calling installed. I think its great that they extend dial tone after flashing when the only apparent need (in your case) is to dial *70. I'm curious to know what happens if you try anything else with the interim dial tone you are given. Ever tried another call, for example? What happens then? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM Date: 27 Oct 90 01:34:44 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13961@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > The {Wall Stree Journal} of 22 October has a short article headed > "Directory Assistance Without Dialing 411". It describes a product > offered by PhoneDisc USA Corp, of Warwick, NY, which consists of two > CD-ROMs which list 90 million "residential listings" for $1850; I just saw an ad for "Speed Dial" CDROM National Business Telephone Directory. It claims numbers for 9.2 million businesses. Search by yellow page heading or name. Print selected listings. Dial a number. post a 'sticky-note' on any listing (I assume using your hard disk, obviously can't do it on CDROM). Says it has a 30 day money back guarantee (return for any reason). The interesting thing is that unlike any others I have seen so far this one might be labeled affordable. single user: $249 intro offer $199. 8 user lan $1399 " " $999. 9-100 user lan $1999 " " $1499. Though nothing else is mentioned about it, there is also a box to check for info on a national consumer directory, too. 1.800.45.SPEED They are: Dataware Technologies Inc 222 Third Avenue, Suite 3300 Cambridge, MA 02142-9815 ***no connection what-so-ever*** ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls Date: 27 Oct 90 13:03:15 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <14047@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > On a normal phone bill, you see calls "to" if you dial direct, and > "from ... to" (or vice versa) for third-party or credit-card > (calling-card) calls, and you get "[collect] from" if you accepted a > collect call? > Now if you call-forward to a number which is long-distance, you are to > see the long-distance charge for a call from your phone to the phone > where you are forwarding to. How does this appear on your phone bill? NJ Bell shows forwarded calls on the phone bill of the party who did the forwarding. The calls show up with the keyletter F in the left margin of the detail bill. (Other keyletters are used, alone or in combination, to indicate, for example, an operator-assisted call, a day-, evening-, or night-rate call.) The letter F is listed in the 'explanation of symbols' section as 'a Forwarded call'. They show the forward-to number as the 'number called'. A forwarded call produces no display at all on the Caller*ID display of the party forwarding the call. The reciepent of the call is shown the number of the originating, not the forwarding party, with no indication that the call was forwarded -- i.e. if I receive a call from A who called B whose calls were forwarded to me, my Caller*ID display shows A's number. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 22:39:37 EDT From: Tom Maszerowski Subject: Two Locations With Same Number Here's one I wouldn't have believed - I am a member of a Volunteer Fire Department in the Rochester NY area. My wife is the Deptartment Treasurer. Recently we received a huge bill from AT&T for a number of long distance calls from one of our two phone numbers and a house in the Buffalo NY suburbs. The bill amounted to over $250 for just the month of September. Preliminary investigation with the recipient revealed little, as she would not divulge the name of the caller. Our local Police Department recommended pursuing her as an accessory to petit larceny. Before we could do so, our telephone company, Rochester Telephone, revealed that there was a another "house" with the same number about a mile or so away. They had initiated service with the other customer about a year or so previous. The department had been receiving bills that seemed a bit large, but not extremely so, for a while but no one gave it much thought. It wasn't until the aforementioned young lady moved out of the LATA that the bills got out of hand. A phone call to the gentleman making the calls was interesting. It seems that his mother has been paying his bills, even though he doesn't live with her. His phone was cut off at least once before due to failure to pay. He simply assumed that when he never recieved a bill that his mother was paying them, and never gave it a second thought. AT&T and RTC will be pursuing him for payment; we are absolved of the cost for the long distance calls to the one number; but the charges he accumulated in the past we will have to eat as it would be difficult to prove he made them. RTC is again disconnecting him, we can only hope that no one else will be assigned our number. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #770 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16620; 29 Oct 90 1:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12380; 28 Oct 90 23:43 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12140; 28 Oct 90 22:40 CST Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 22:06:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #771 BCC: Message-ID: <9010282206.ab24074@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Oct 90 22:05:38 CST Volume 10 : Issue 771 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Timothy L. Kay] Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Other Mail Networks (Was Does AT&T Mail Exist?) [David Tamkin] Re: Odd (617) Number [John R. Covert] Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [John Higdon] Re: 800 Numbas [John Higdon] Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Gary Segal] Re: MCI and Cubic Zirconia? [Mark Steiger] Re: Another Problem With Centrex [Ed Hopper] Re: Alternate Telephone Service [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Timothy L. Kay" Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 28 Oct 90 20:13:10 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS. > *60 Call Screening Enter: [...] > # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the > last call you received, whether or not > you know the number. > 1 To play a list of the numbers being screened. What if you enter *60 #01# followed by *60 1? Does this read back the number of the last call received? This could be an inexpensive alternative to Caller*ID. >Multi-Ring Service Two additional numbers can be associated with > your number. When someone dials one of these > two numbers, your phone will give a special ring. It would be useful to have a fax switch that could decide, based on the ring, whether to engage the fax machine, data modem, or answering machine. Tim ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 19:56:42 GMT In article <14086@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 769, Message 1 of 2 >For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS. >... The new features being offered here are: ... > *60 Call Screening Enter: > # plus number to be screened out plus # > * plus number to be re-admitted plus * > # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the > last call you received, whether or not > you know the number. > 1 To play a list of the numbers being screened. The two last options look as if they give a way to find out the number of the last call received, even if that caller didn't want to be identified - or is there a catch, such as the number won't be added, or won't be played? henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 21:30:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS Our two respondents in this issue both caught on quickly to the *possible* way of ascertaining a calling number when Caller*ID is not available. Unfortunatly, it does not work that way. *60 # 01 # says one of two things: a) "The number you have added is a PRIVATE ENTRY." b) or, "I'm sorry, that number cannot be screened." If the number is from out of LATA or otherwise unidentifiable to your CO, then you get response (b). Otherwise you get (a). However, even with (a) the number is not given to you. Regarding Call Screening generally, I've discovered several interesting facts about our version of it. (Yes, your Moderator has been busy playing with his new toys.) Having been told only about 60-70 percent of 312/708 and the portions of 815 within our LATA have been converted, I decided to try and find out which areas had not yet been cutover. I found a few other things in the process. My testing procedure: I dialed *60, then selected a prefix which came to mind from each of the telepone areas here. For example, I tried 465 and 761 from here in my own office, Chicago-Rogers Park. I always added the same last four digits '3000' for ease in remembering what had to later be removed. There seemed to be only three or four areas where I could not screen, one being Austin, the other being Evasnton/Skokie to my north, and Newcastle in the far northwest area of the city. By accident I found that if a number is not curently in service, it cannot be added. Numbers which do not return supervision as we think of it cannot be added. For example, 312-727 is used entirely by Illinois Bell Headquarters. I could not add any 727 numbers to the screen. I was unable to screen 312-368-8000, the Illinois Bell Communicator Newsline, yet I could screen other 368 numbers. I could not screen out 312-787-0000, which is how 911 gets translated for this neighborhood. I was unable to screen numbers in any prefix above 9899. Traditionally, the numbers from 9900 -> 9999 on any prefix here are reserved for telco use. I was unable to screen 312-PIG anything, which is the City of Chicago centrex, including the Police Department. Possibly that is because from anywhere in Chicago, a call to one of those numbers is only a single untimed unit, no matter how long you talk, thus the 'supervision' is different than most. When you add a number to Call Screening, you apparently get all the numbers in the group. I screened the listed number for my office, which coincidentally is in the same CO as my residence. I screened only the listed, first number in the series. To test it, I called in via the WATS extender line, got the PBX, dialed 9 and went out again to my number. *It screened the call* -- I know for a fact I was not actually placing the call from the main listed, first number in the group. I'd have been on one of the back-lines used for outgoing calls. So apparently our Call Screening relies on the ANI it receives rather than the specific number for the trunk used to place the call. Apparently the ANI refers to all the numbers at our business by the main number. I could not screen either cell phone. I guess that is because my cell phone numbers (312-415-xxxx and 312-504-xxxx) are just incoming DID trunks. Smart me: I tried screening 312-228-xxxx, which is what ANI reports is the number I am 'really' using when making a call out from the cell phone. That could not be screened either, and a cross check with the Name and Address Bureau showed the owner of 312-228-xxxx as the 'IBT Co', no address listed, Hickory Hills, IL. Calls *to* that number are intercepted saying 'the number you dialed, 228-xxxx is not equipped for incoming calls'. One curious case: I tried screening 312-855-2000 and various other lines up to 855-3100. I know these to be DID trunks and a Rolm system in a department store downtown. The response I got from Call Screening in every case in this group of numbers: (After a longer than usual pause) "We're sorry, please try adding the number again in a few minutes." ???? And I got that report at various times day and night over the past two days. I have *no idea* why a 'few minutes' would make a difference. I was able to add other 312-855 numbers (from 3101 up) immediatly. Finally, I was able to screen myself! :) I added my first (main listed) number to the screen ... then tried dialing my first line from my second line. It blocked me out, which re-inforces my belief that our Call Screening here looks at the ANI given rather than the individual phone number. I'd say that is a nice way of doing it. As I find further 'secrets' about Call Screening, I will post messages. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Other Mail Networks (Was Does AT&T Mail Exist?) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:59:27 CDT _Portable_Computing's_ list of other email services, submitted by Joel Snyder in volume 10, issue 735, included these: | Genie/GE Mail 800-638-9636 | | Sign up $30, no maintenance fee. Costs based on connect time. paper | mail. (Internet gateway unknown) Make that "Signup free, $4.95 monthly maintenance (first month refunded if you cancel by the end of the month), no connect charges for time spent composing, sending, or reading text mail, *no* Internet gateway." GEnie completely restructured its rates October 1, 1990. | MCI Mail 800-444-6245 | | (these rates are known to be out-of-date) | $25/year fee. Costs based on connect time plus per message fee. FAX, | paper mail. Internet gateway. There are no connect charges if you use MCI Mail's direct 800 indial; there are for reaching them through BT Tymnet. | Sprint Mail 800-835-3638 | | $20/year fee. Costs based on connect time plus per message fee. FAX, | paper mail, storage fees. (Internet gateway unknown). I have telephoned them several times for printed information, and each time someone takes my name down, but nothing ever arrives. It cannot be their office procedures, because they had no difficulty sending me information about P C Pursuit. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:14:19 PST From: "John R. Covert 28-Oct-1990 1313" Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number The 617-958-xxxx number referred to in Issue 766 is a pager. It answers, beeps three times to indicate readiness for Touch-Tone, accepts the tones, and signals the pager, placing the tones on the pager display. john ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems Date: 28 Oct 90 11:09:43 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Andy Jacobson writes: > So, if that is all there is, where would this resistor be on a 400D, > 400G or 400H card? Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or > xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold > circuit? That would certainly be alot cheaper and less trouble than > buying one of those adaptor kits that companys like Tellabs sells. The resistor is easy to spot. It's the only five watt resistor on the card. Music on hold is nothing more than bridging audio across that resistor, usually with a transformer. But also bear in mind that you will have to provide isolation between lines; you wouldn't want two of your customers getting together while on hold and discussing an alternative to your goods or services. The isolation usually consists of the fact that each line is driven by a separate amplifier. This prevents audio from the caller from backing up through the MOH system and being heard by other callers on hold. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 800 Numbas Date: 28 Oct 90 11:23:33 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon David Lesher writes: > Who says how LONG the number is? > 1-800 MCIHOME {tone} yxzx 743-1923 > would do just as they say ... and NOT use up big chunks of the NPA. Oh, but this is weenie in the extreme and a far cry from "your own personal 800 number". As a person who has a *real* 800 number, let me give you some differences. My number could be obtained from "800 555-1212". It is available from rotary phones. It is available from COCOTs that mute the pad after dialing. It is available from dial-less toll stations. It requires no special instructions. What you describe above is nothing more than a "call home" credit card arrangement -- not an 800 number assignment. To advertise it as such would be a little fraudulent. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" Date: 28 Oct 90 22:42:39 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yasi) writes: >"How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator >when you dial O?" At one company I worked for, there was no one other than myself to answer my phone. When a voice mail system was installed, it was very usefull, allowing me to recieve calls when I was away from my desk. However, if somebody dialed "0", it would simply ring my line again, and then go back to the message. There was no person to whom the call could be routed to; I didn't have a seceratary, nor would the company operator have been able to take a message. I wasn't about to send all of my calls to my boss, who didn't have seceratary either, and was also hardly at his desk. Not the best system, but given the option of no answer, what would you want? >I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one! How's that? Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2354 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Sat Oct 27 90 at 12:30:30 (CDT) Subject: Re: MCI and Cubic Zirconia? MCI has a similar offer for members of the Northwest Airlines frequesnt flier club members. Every few pucks you spend on MCI LD you get so many credits to your account. [ 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: Ed Hopper Subject: Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:24:30 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 Here's another Centrex problem I ran into once. Downtown Phoenix, Arizona was heavily Centrexed at one time. Phoenix Main CO had a ton of Centrexes working in it including major banks and other firms. My customer was in another business. One day, the TCM tried to make a toll call and got fast busy intercept. She dialed 0 to be connected to the Centrex console. She asked to be patched to the WATS line. The operator (i.e., the company employee at the console, not the telco operator) asked her for her departmental accounting code. "What do you mean by that?" she asked. "Well, " the operator replied, "Every XYZ Bank department has an accounting code." Somehow, in all of the mass of translation changes that occured each day in Phoenix Main, someone screwed up and put a Company X extension in the Centrex of Company Y. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Alternate Telephone Service Date: 27 Oct 90 01:10:46 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13970@accuvax.nwu.edu>, asuvax!rako!rakoczynskij@ ncar.ucar.edu (Jurek Rakoczynski) writes: > Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service > supplier'. I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a > (cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was I never heard about alternate sources of dialtone to homes, but in NYC the Teleport Communications folks (made up I believe of Merrill Lynch and PATH - Port Authority Trans Hudson Corp - the NY/NJ docks, airports, one of the subways, etc company) have a #5 ESS. Merrill Lynch bought it as a PBX but only have a piddling 13000 lines on it, so their partner in this took it over and they are selling local dialtone to potentially anyone they sell fiber bypass to. They have filed to be allowed to do it in CA, too. This is just what the local phone companies dread, but so sorely deserve. If they would only do it here in Boston in the other NYNEX territory. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #771 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18201; 29 Oct 90 2:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25441; 29 Oct 90 0:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12380; 28 Oct 90 23:44 CST Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 23:16:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #772 BCC: Message-ID: <9010282316.ab30373@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Oct 90 23:15:54 CST Volume 10 : Issue 772 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular ESN # Tie-ing? [Brian Litzinger] Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Two Residential lines, Different Owners, Same Class of Service [A Jacobson] New Answering Service [Mark Steiger] Billing Arrangements Can be a Nightmare [Ed Hopper] Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Christopher Gillett] What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Christopher Gillett] 911 Omniscience [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Litzinger Subject: Cellular ESN # Tie-ing? Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 06:45:00 GMT I was innocently minding my own business when my cellular phone could no longer place calls. When I tried to place a call, I got the message 'Your phone is not authorized for this service'. After eight days of research here is what I've determined seems to have happened: My cellular service, Comtech, had disconnected my service for non-payment and them reconnected it minutes later because I had actually paid my bill. They have admitted to having some problems with their billing system of late. Five months earlier I had PacTel as my Cellular service provider however, because of some outright lies on PacTel's part I had the service discontinued and switched. Apparently, after I left PacTel they had my ESN # "tied", so I couldn't establish new service with anyone. They claimed for non-payment, but I have the cancelled check. Unfortunately, for PacTel I had subscribed to my new service before their "tie" went into effect. Later when Comtech disconnected my service and then tried to reconnect it the "tie" showed up and I was left without service. My question are: What exactly is "tie-ing"? PacTel continues to leave my ESN# tied, even though they have no legal (IMHO) right to do so. Are they going to pay for my lost service and subsequent lost business? Has anyone had an experience similar to this and how was it resolved? I've read the back of my phone bills and flyers from the PUC that say for non-cellular local systems, and long distance service, they can't disconnect your service over disputed amounts until after a PUC hearing. However, PacTel acts just about the opposite. Not only can they disconnect your service, but they seem able, through "tie-ing", to disable you from all services, and they don't even have to inform you of what they are doing. Some opinions about PacTel: Comtech wanted to handle this problem for me, but PacTel absolutely refused to talk with them. I had to middle-man everything. PacTel expected me to have kept track of everything related to my five month old account. I tossed it all, so they basically said they couldn't help me. PacTel treated me like this was all my fault, and whatever the case, it was my job to straighten things out. <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian <> Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:55:11 JST From: Robert Trebor Woodhead Subject: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line I am looking for a device that will let me connect and use a fax machine and a regular telephone/answering machine on the same line. The catch is that I would like incoming callers to be able to leave either a message or send a fax! The main problem is that in order to send a fax, the receiving fax machine (mine) must first send tones; this is normally done when the fax detects a ring and picks up the phone. However, in order to be able to let people leave voice messages, it is the answering machine that must pick up first. Checking around at a phone store here in Japan (this is for a friend of mine) revealed all sorts of wierd and complicated solutions that involve boxes that listen for voices, and if they dont hear any, timeout and connect the fax. Yuck! Expensive! $300! After a little thought, I feel that what is really needed is a simple box that does the following+ 1) When a call comes in, it is automatically routed to output #1 - the Answering machine. The message on the machine says "Leave a message at the tone, or press for the fax machine." 2) If the box detects the right touchtone (switch settable) it switches the call over to the fax machine (and may need to fake a ring). 3) N seconds after the answering machine goes offhook (again, switch settable), rerouting capability is disabled; or alternatively, if a different touchtone is heard, the rerouting is turned off. This allows the caller to control an answering machine via touchtones without the switchbox interfering. Seems to me this is a couple of IC's, a dip switch, a relay and two modular plugs! Is there such a device? Even with the usual huge markups it shouldnt retail for more than $100. If there isn't such a device, then perhaps one of the gentle readers of comp.dcom.telecom would be interested in helping me develop and patent one. ;^) Split the royalties after expense? Robert Woodhead - trebor@biar.UUCP - ...!uunet!biar!trebor ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 04:17 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service When I moved to Yellow Springs, Ohio in 1986, I moved into an appartment the architect had designed as part of a single family house. When I ordered phone service, the Ohio Bell rep (in their Xenia office) told me that, because the house was in an area zoned for single family residences, I could only have the class of service that the other residents of the house had, which was flat rate metro. Several months later, when 1+ options became available, I was also told that I could only have the same LD carrier as the other line had. I wonder if this sort of restriction exists today, or if it was/is legal. [Moderator's Note: I think had you taken a copy of your lease to show them (which would demonstrate that 'the other residents of the house' had no control over or right of entry into your space; nor you into theirs) that telco would have been obliged to give you whatever service you wanted. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Sat Oct 27 90 at 12:37:11 (CDT) Subject: New Answering Service US West has started a new service in the Minneapolis area. It is a service which you record a message on thir computer. When your phone is busy or not answered, the computer at the phone Co. office catches the call, plays your message, then listens and records the messages. They say you can check on your messages from anywhere with touchtone and change the message at any time. It sounds kinda good, but I am too far away to get it. Also, I don't need Bell keeping track of who is calling me. [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: You silly fellow! Bell already has all the mechanisms in place to 'keep track of who is calling you'. What makes you think their new voicemail service would make it any easier or more likely? Under voicemail, they'd only get the ones who left messages. Whatever switch they are running now, if it is capable of handling voicemail then I'm sure it already keeps plenty of audit trails. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Hopper Subject: Billing Arrangements Can be a Nightmare Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:22:16 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 I am working from somewhat fuzzy memories, but while in Mountain Bell Marketing in El Paso, Texas (this was before the barbarians at SWBT took over the town), I often billed numbers from different COs to other accounts. For example a firm had a PBX in it's office on the west side of town as the main account. The warehouse with a 1FB on the east side of town, in a different MBT admin area and CO was billed via something called an "SBG" to the PBX account. SBG meant special billing group. Note that different classes of service (PBX vs 1FB) and billing dates existed. All of this was overcome. In fact it was common, when looking at service records for the account, to see 5, 10 or more 1FB line stuck on the end of the service record for billing purposes. These lines were all over town. A convenience store or gas station chain's records could be a real zoo! This was not just the case in Bell provided PBXs either. Customers who had misguidedly opted to buy from other vendors (:-)) still had 1FBs tagged on to their trunk bills. The only problem was in trying to bill from a different exchange (note: an exchange is NOT a CO, it is a tariff area!), i.e., from Anthony, Texas a small town on the NM state line, to El Paso numbers. Also, one couldn't cross the business/residential line. There was a way around that using "GBG", Gift Billing Group. I'm not sure we were within compliance with the rules when we did it. But, we did, on occasion, make residential service a "gift" from the business phone. In 1980, things were fairly manual. Service reps wrote orders by hand and they were copied by "order writers", also by hand, to the actual documents that went to the CO, field installation, dial admin, etc. They finally got batched into a mainframe by people in an organization with the acronym "TIGER" after the order was completed. I can't speak to the measured service issues, then and now measured service in Texas is like a state income tax, a socialist idea that has infected other states but to be fought to the last breath here. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 14:07:54 PST From: Christopher Gillett Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy In article <13998@accuvax.nwu.edu> dpletche@jarthur.claremont.edu writes: >When the phone rings, I assume it is because someone has something >marginally important, or at least interesting, to say; thus I drop >what I am doing to answer the phone. That is why I do not appreciate >being interrupted by junk phone calls. When I relocated to the east coast last year, NET (New England Telco) sent me a letter with business reply mail postcard shortly after switching on my service. This letter said something to the effect of, "if you don't want telemarketers contacting you, fill this out and they'll leave you alone". So, I supplied the requested information, signed the card, and sent it in. End of 90% of the telemarketer woes. My assumption is that they have removed my name and telephone number from a list that they sell to telemarketing outfits. Maybe they do some sort of blocking out here (doubtful), but whatever they've done, I simply do not get telemarketer phone calls. During the first year of having service, I've gotten exactly two calls, one from one of the Boston daily papers, and one from a recording. I no longer get calls from all over the country from people selling magazines, books, (hint: tell them you're blind :-)), and other goodies. I don't get calls from boilerrooms trying to jam securities and other junk down my throat. When the phone rings, it's friends, family, or business ... exactly the way it should be. So, my point is this: if your telco offers not to distribute your name, then absolutely sign up. This provides no protection from an automated dialer that calls every number in an exchange looking for people, but it can significantly reduce the number of junk calls you receive. And if you do happen to receive a call, just say "no thank you", and if they don't hang up, then you should. I have no problem saying "no thank you, have a pleasant day", and then hanging up. What's interesting, of course, is that I get many more junk calls at my office number than at home. Even with the phone from home forwarded (I always ask what number they've dialed). Hmmm. 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! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 14:07:54 PST From: Christopher Gillett Subject: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? At present, I have your "standard" two phone lines (one voice, one data). The voice line is xxx-9020, while the data line is xxx-3691 (and is configured with "RingMate", NET's name for distinctive ring service, so that that line can double as incoming modem, incoming FAX, or outgoing anything). The 3691 number is rarely hooked up to a telephone since it's supposedly only used for data and FAX traffic. So, if you call expecting voice, you won't get it. I prefer to be listed in the phone book as "Christopher Gillett", since that is my legal name, even though I "go by" Chris. So, when people called directory assistance looking for me, the operator said xxx-3691, and folks could never "find me home", or thought that there was something wrong with my service. When I got wind of this, I called NET and asked to have things structured such that people would get 9020 when they called directory assistance. The bottom line is that I cannot be listed at 9020 as "Christopher Gillett", I had to be listed as "Chris Gillett", and have the 3691 line changed to unlisted. Their reasoning was that since "Chris" comes before "Christopher", and 9020 comes after 3691, it was necessary to have "Chris" at the 9020 number to avoid the directory assistance operator telling people I was unlisted. And when I asked if they could list me as... Gillett, Christopher voice xxx-9020 data xxx-3691 ... they got all huffy and inquired as to whether or not I was running a business, and no, sorry, they couldn't do that unless I wanted business service. All this seems incredibly stupid to me. It seems to me that you should able to be listed in the phone book in the manner of your choosing, using your name or legal, proper derivation thereof, without a lot of hassling. If someone is looking for the "official me", they'll look for Christopher. A directory assistance operator might say "well, I have a 'Chris', do you want that?", but then again the operator might not. So, it's not only a nuisance and a nit, it could cause problems. Further, I don't see why "data line in your home" means "commercial rates". What is the story here? Have other people encountered similar listing difficulties with NET or other telcos? One last thing, it is SOP amongst all the different telcos to charge *more* every month for touchtone service than for rotary dial? I thought it worked the other way around. 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! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 21:45:21 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: 911 Omniscience An article in the Sunday 10/28 {New York Times} (A22, "For Police, a Delicate Job of Reordering Priorities" describes a 911 operator answering a call, "Within one second, the computer told her the caller's telephone number and the address and even that the caller was on an extension phone". How is it possible to know that the caller was on an extension? Did the reporter misunderstand what he was told, or is there some magic going on here that I can't figure out? Recently somebody on the Digest says he travels with a butt set so he can, for example, tap somebody's outside junction box in an emergency. What would happen if you needed to call 911 and the fastest way was to break open a nearby telco box, clip a butt set onto a random pair, and call from there? When you told the operator, "No, I'm not at [insert address corresponding to that pair's subscriber's home], but on the corner of foo and bar", would s/he be likely to believe you? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #772 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14441; 30 Oct 90 0:41 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32032; 29 Oct 90 23:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20991; 29 Oct 90 21:55 CST Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:18:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #773 BCC: Message-ID: <9010292118.ab20156@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:17:29 CST Volume 10 : Issue 773 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cambodia Gets New Earth Station [U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Logisticon v. Revlon [Michael H. Riddle] AT&T Employee Gets Slammed by Sprint [Ed Hopper] BITFTP and uuencoded Files [John C. Fowler] MOH Across Hold Resistor [Barton F. Bruce] Long Distance Service to Hawaii [Douglas Scott Reuben] Trick or Treat? [Peter M. Weiss] *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) [J. Eric Townsend] Wanted: "Pole climbers" [Bill Berbenich] ATC Strikes Again [Bill Huttig] Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [David E. A. Wilson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Cambodia Gets New Earth Station Date: 30 Oct 90 12:19:53 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne From {The Age} Tuesday, 30 October, 1990. Melbourne, Australia. Cambodia to get telecommunications via OTC Cambodia this month began its first modern telecommunications links to the outside world using a satellite earth station installed by OTC International, Australia's overseas arm of OTC. [The Australian Overseas Telecommunications Commission.] It claims to provide the first realistic opportunity for the many thousands of Cambodian-born Australians to have telephone contact with friends and relatives in Cambodia, but will also link globally throughout the OTC International Network. The 7.5 metre Vista earth station was supplied and installed in the capital city, Phnom Penh, by OTC International under a commercial with the Directorate of Posts and Telecommunications, DPT, of Cambodia. Formerly, says OTC, Cambodia has had to rely on a relatively antiquated network provided through the Soviet Intersputnik system. Under the contract OTC International and DPT will share investment costs and revenues, and OTC International, which already holds contracts in Vietnam, Laos, Sri Lanka and Thailand, will further develop the Cambodian communications system and training services, over a ten year period. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:24:55 cst From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Logisticon v. Revlon An interesting item appeared recently in several newspapers. A small Silicon Valley software house, Logisticon, apparently had a contract with the giant Revlon for process and inventory control systems. The stories indicate that Logisticon delivered the product and Revlon was using it, but the software wasn't doing everything Revlon thought it should. While the stories indicate Logisticon was working with Revlon to fix the problems, they must not have been making much progress. Revlon withheld (or threatened to withold) substantial payment, and threatened to cancel the contract. So far, an ordinary contract dispute? Remember, this is Silicon Valley! {begin telecom angle Logisticon had dial-up access to the Revlon system, so late one night recently they dialed up and disabled the software, in the process encrypting at least the critical parts of the data. According to the news reports, two major Revlon distribution centers were shut down for three days. Logisticon then re-enabled the software, apparently at the advice of their counsel. end telecom angle} As you can imagine, the lawyers are licking their chops and each side is trading charges. Revlon accuses "computer terrorism." Logisticon responds with [high tech] repossession of unpaid-for merchandise. To a law student with 20+ years telecom experience, this is a fascinating case. Almost certainly wiser heads will prevail and it will settle, but it could turn out to set new law as the courts play catch-up with the modern world. riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ From: Ed Hopper Subject: AT&T Employee Gets Slammed by Sprint Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:44:09 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 I was slammed by US Sprint a few years ago (1986). I noticed it when the line quality went down and I couldn't reach certain 201-221 numbers (the AT&T puzzle palace in Basking Ridge, NJ) from my home phone. I got suspicious. I called the 700 number for carrier validation and, lo and behold, received the message "Thanking you for choosing US Sprint". I immediately called SWBT. They had a record of a change of primary carrier from AT&T to US Sprint issued by Sprint. Yes, they would switch me back ASAP, for free. I then called AT&T (800-222-0300) and told them about it. Finally I confronted Sprint. I called and after an interminable ACD delay, got to a rep. I asked her to put her boss on the line at the outset as I wanted things that she wasn't, I was sure, authorized to do. I also wanted to yell at a manager, not a peon. When the manager came on, I told him that his company had goofed, would he please make it right. I advised him I was an AT&T employee. As such I had a certain amount of free LD as a company benefit. By slamming me, US Sprint was expecting me to pay for what would normally be free. Additionally, several of my calls (I had been on Sprint for about a week) were work related. AT&T would also pay for those, but ONLY if they were made on AT&T. I advised him that I had no intention of paying for ANY of the Sprint calls. Would he please write them off and also make sure I was switched back to AT&T. I got very little hassle out of them. They agreed to all I wanted and wrote off all charges. Quite frankly, if all slammees would insist on not paying for slammed calls AT ALL, I think the practice would stop. After all, the charges for LD calls are ill-gotten gains and I believe that an IXC would have a hard time substantiating them. Just follow the practice of screaming loudly, rationally (don't curse) and highly (keep insisting on the next level up when you get a "no"). To this day, I call 1-700-555-4141 once a month to make sure that I am still on my preferred carrier. Ed Hopper AT&T Computer Systems ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 15:14:11 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: BITFTP and uuencoded Files A while back, someone mentioned that the BITFTP server at pucc.princeton.edu (or PUCC.BITNET, depending on who you are) will sometimes send long files in uuencoded format. I sent a letter to Melinda Varian (MAINT@PUCC.BITNET) asking about this. I was wondering whether the NETDATA option mentioned in the HELP document would override any decision to uuencode the files before transmission. I received a response today. Explicitly selecting files for NETDATA transmission will indeed override anything else. So, if you have been having problems with uuencoded files, use: FTP lcs.mit.edu NETDATA instead of just FTP lcs.mit.edu to access the TELECOM Archives. Note that large files may be split up into several messages, which will be sent to you in a (seemingly) random order. For more information about the BITFTP service, send a message to bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu or BITFTP@PUCC.BITNET. The message should contain only the word "HELP" (without the quotes) on its first line. John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu, JFOWLER@UCSD.BITNET ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: MOH Across Hold Resistor Date: 29 Oct 90 01:41:46 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <14092@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Andy Jacobson writes: > Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or > xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold > circuit? You should use transformer isolation, and that is exactly what the ITT K-403A music-on-hold card did. It had to be plugged into a k259 panel (that gave you wrap tails to use as needed, rather than be prewired for normal card use). There probably is a FAT cap in there to block DC fron the xfmr's secondary. There is 1 input xfmr, and 6 output ones on the k-403 card. One normally used it with the k-400E cards that had a jumper option to put pin 18 to the RING side of the resistor (was 120 ohms on those cards). That side was the one that got switched. The TIP end of the resistor was directly connected to TIP, so the MOH xfmr was connected from pin 14 to pin 18. Any wire to pin 18 (and 3) was normally for A battery for 401 manual intercoms or 415s or anything needing quiet 'TALK BATTERY'. If these were multipled or even connected to A battery and ground, the existing wires have to be removed first. In the case the 501 KSUs, 18 and 3 were brought out and punched down seperately for each card slot so there was no problem. On some of the really newer KSUs that used 20 pin connectors, 18, 3, 0, 19 were ALL brought out seperately for whatever options needed them. Rather than muck with the KSU, you could instead tack solder a pair of wires to the ends of the resistor, and bring the wire out to a cheap connector or something similar for easy servicing. If you get a k403, here are the connections. Jumper ABC is for input impedance. For 500 ohm in, jumper plugs BC, for 8000 ohm, use AB. output pins for 6 ckts: 1,2/3,4/5,6/13,14/15,16/17,18 input pair pins 7,8 power (filtered A battery) 9=A-bat, 11=A-gnd It is designed to have at least 45 db isolation between any two lines connected and getting 'music' (or quiet). Someone else once made such a unit with one output xfmr with several windings. I assume and crostalk isolation was done with pads after the xfmr. ------------------------------ Date: 29-OCT-1990 05:52:59.74 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Long Distance Service to Hawaii I've been increasingly annoyed by AT&T service to Hawaii (from the mainland U.S.). Each time I call I get a satellite, and it usually has a good deal of echo. I've called AT&T to ask if there is a way to get an undersea cable (fiber or otherwise), but they had no idea what I was talking about or WHY I would even care how it went. (Quite unusual for AT&T, although admittedly, this is a rather unusual question...!) Is there any other LD Co. that has fiber to Hawaii? I was under the impression that the trans-Pacific cable was finished, which is why it is hard for me to believe that AT&T is still using satellite. I don't like the idea of using someone else other than AT&T (won't count to ROA, etc...), but if they have better service, might as well take advantage of one of the few beneficial aspects of Divestiture by 'Equal-Access'-ing the call over whatever carrier... I've tried MCI and it doesn't seem to be much better (surprise, surprise..), and Sprint didn't complete! (Well, in all fairness, I only tried once before giving up...maybe it took them a long time to connect or something.) If there is any other company that doesn't use satellite to Hawaii, I'd love to hear about it! (I THINK the fiber cable is finished, at least to Hawaii, isn't it?) Thanks in advance for any help, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 29 Oct 1990 08:02:22 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Trick or Treat? Since Halloween is closing in on us, do you have any horror stories relating to the use of dialup modems used in hotels/motels that caused PBX difficulties when the RJ11 wasn't really compatible electrically? Pete ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 11:22:38 CST From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) Recently I took a trip up to Austin, Tx. I stayed at the Wyndham (an expensive ritzy hotel :-). Being one of those really wierd criminal types, I paid for my room cash up front. (Trying to rent cars and hotel rooms with cash only could make a short novel of anecdotes. Sigh). I decided to call my brother, who lives in Austin (a local call). The hotel operator cut in and told me I needed to leave a deposit to make phone calls. This sounded strange to me, since I'd already made some LD calls with my Sprint card. Then it hit me: Dial out to Sprint (which is required to be free?) then make my local call. I really didn't care if Sprint charged me, the hotel wanted .25 per call and I really wanted to see if it would work. It did. I got my bill today. NO CHARGE for the calls I made local to Austin. Not even a record of them. Free calls for all!! J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r) ------------------------------ From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Wanted: "Pole Climbers" Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 12:22:54 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Anyone have a pair of those spiked pole-climbers that the outside plant guys put on over their boots in order to climb poles? If so, are you interested in selling them? I've found a few vendors that sell them new, but the price is just too high (==$150). I've already got a belt- harness and strap, but will consider buying them too, with the pole- climbers. Thanks in advance, please reply directly to me at the e-mail address below. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC Strikes Again Date: 29 Oct 90 18:55:13 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I just got off of the phone with South Tel (I use them for calls within my LATA) it turns out the ATC bought them about two months again. So far ATC bought ... Telus, MicroTel and several other FL bassed resellers/ carriers. How long will it be before we are left with three companies? Does anyone know who the top 10 carriers are? I think the top four are: AT&T MCI US Sprint ITT/Metromedia ATC might be fourth. Bill ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 04:06:48 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >It is that day again: the day when folks in the United States set our >clocks back one hour, to make up for the one hour advancement we made >in April. Sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning, move your clocks >back an hour to resume *Standard* time. The official changeover time >is 2:00 AM Sunday morning local time, of course. What a coincidence - this year our daylight saving started on 29-Oct-90 at 2am Australian Eastern Standard Time (which became 3am Australian Eastern Summer Time). This year all the states (except Western Australia & the Northern Territory) agreed to start on the same day (in past years Queensland was out by a week or two). Apparently a number of newspapers in Queensland had instructed their readers to move their clocks BACK rather than the correct forward. The telecom connection? According to one news item on the radio, in Queensland the Telecom speaking clock also went backwards by mistake. The lack of a deterministic algorithm for the start/end of daylight saving causes us no end of problems with our computers. Our Sequent computer and all our Annex boxes thought it started last week. Our Sun's got it right this year. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #773 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15300; 30 Oct 90 1:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16128; 30 Oct 90 0:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32032; 29 Oct 90 23:00 CST Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 22:21:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #774 BCC: Message-ID: <9010292221.ab21270@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Oct 90 22:21:03 CST Volume 10 : Issue 774 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line [Frederick Roeber] Re: Odd (617) Number [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Len Rose Arrested Again! [Stephen Friedl] Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Lou Judice] Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Wolf Paul] Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Bob Yasi] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Paolo Bellutta] Re: 800 Numbas [Bill Huttig] Re: Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Patrick Tufts] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Jerry Durand] Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 29 Oct 90 01:28:16 PST In article <14111@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kddlab!foretune.co.jp!trebor (Robert Trebor Woodhead) writes: > I am looking for a device that will let me connect and use a fax > machine and a regular telephone/answering machine on the same line. > The catch is that I would like incoming callers to be able to leave > either a message or send a fax! Such things exist. I have seen a combination FAX/answering machine that has an OGM, then the `beep' is actually the FAX signal. Then it listens for FAX signals to determine what it should do with the message. The one I've seen had an OGM ``..leave a message at the beep, or if you want to send a FAX, press `send' at the beep,'' but the FAX machine I was sending from patiently waited through the voice message, recognized the beep, and sent. Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@vxcern.cern.ch r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: +41 22 767 5373 ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number Date: 29 Oct 90 00:03:44 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <14065@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > Any thoughts on the function of this number, (617)958-6544? Try dialing some TT digits after that. You will then get: "THANK YOU FOR USING PAGENET". You just beeped someone's beeper, and whatever garbage you TT'd in is displayed on his beeper. There IS a concerted push to reclaim 800 numbers from the paging folks in this area, and I think that at least three other exchanges are so used, and, like the previous 800 based paging services, are FREE to the local caller. Don't know about LD callers, though. It probably is the SAME whether dialled as a local number from 617 or 508. I just asked the local operator and that IS a paging exchange, and she did say there were others, BUT wouldn't volunteer any more info. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 90 10:05:30 PST (Sun) From: Stephen Friedl Subject: Re: Len Rose Arrested Again! Date: 28 Oct 90 18:05:26 GMT Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA Our Moderator writes on the unfortunate arrest of Len Rose: > It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United > States, Mr. Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges > against him until they are proven in court. The Constitution imposes this requirement only on the government, and private citizens may feel whatever they like. It is charitible for me to presume innocent [I do], but it is not required. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 06:44:53 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 29-Oct-1990 0938 Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS Your story on your pioneering efforts in CLASS service was very entertaining! It prompted me to call NJ Bell AGAIN (I do this every month or so) to find out when CLASS will be offered in the Peapack CO. Scheduled installation has moved up five months to APRIL, 1991!!! Lou ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 Date: 27 Oct 90 10:11:46 GMT Reply-To: wolf paul Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe In article <13989@accuvax.nwu.edu> croll@wonder.enet.dec.com writes: >TELEPHONE SERVICES: A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID' >in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for >the surplus calls. The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are >demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling >costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the >payments American carriers make. Would someone care to tell us how they might enforce this? Americans are much more dependent on international phone calls for their international business; Europeans and I suspect residents of other countries are much more likely to use correspondence and/or TELEX than intercontinental phone calls. So if the FCC limits how much AT&T can pay the German TELEKOM or the Austrian PTT, etc., and as a result these foreign phone companies simply suspend telephone service to the US, it would primarily affect U.S. businesses. I am not justifying the high rates charged in many places for phone service, I have to bear them myself, but the idea that the FCC can dictate to foreign phone companies how much they can charge for access to their networks is laughable. The mere thought is enough to bring forth the national pride of the bureaucrats running these phone companies, to resist any American attempt at interfering in their rate structures. Why should a European phone company be concerned with the effects on the American trade deficit of competition among U.S. carriers? Every call originating in the US instead of Europe is a loss of revenue to them, so why should they not try to recover that revenue by charging the U.S. carrier who lured away their customer by his lower rates? Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high, they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies' prices. Wolf N. Paul, UNIX SysAdmin, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" Date: 29 Oct 90 07:46:48 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) quotes me getting irate: > >"How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator > >when you dial O?" > >I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one! and suggests an exception from his own experience: > There was no person to whom the call could be routed to Well, Gary, in your example, the actual answer is that there was no human available at all. There being no "bizarre touchtone incantation to divinate", no "French Horn Routing to traverse", no "droning menu having more options than this sentence has adjectives" to wade through for before being Permitted to talk to a real human, I'd simply leave a message on your machine. So you'd have never heard an irate message from me; I like answering machines just fine. By the way, I was so amused by Andy [a College friend I'm back in e-mail contact with thanks to the Digest] Behrens's posting about the Sharper self-Image's phone that makes eight different sounds, including a crying baby to repel telemarketers, that I called them up to order one! Well, THEY have a voice mail system. And IT has a LONG menu. And dialing "O" only makes it start all over again. I'll be ordering my crying baby phone elsewhere! -- Bob Yazz -- yazz@locus.com ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 9:43:58 MET DST In article <13607@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: [ about cable being dug up ] Just one question: Was the cable lied down in the ground directly? I have seen that here the (electric and phone) cables are placed in tubes which are in the laid ground. This would make more sense, since a replacement would me more simple. Moreover, a plastic tape is wound on each cable with an identifier. What is the situation in the US? BTW in Italy main trunks are via microwave links (reason: mountains). Paolo Bellutta (bellutta@irst.uucp) ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: 800 Numbas Date: 29 Oct 90 15:49:05 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I called MCI several times. They still say that it is your home number with the area code replaced with 800. They also said that it will take 45 days because the local phone company has to 'program it'. I wish MCI would train their people better. The lady this morning at the Maryland office (I call there because the CS people in Atlanta are stupid and rude) said that the 800 service was a product of TELECOM*USA and was going to be billed on their computers. That is why they can't add it to existing accounts and it will take 45 days to set up. I think that they haven't finished the programming yet and that is why it will take so long. Bill [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA offers no such package. What they offer are regular 800 numbers, from the block of same assigned to their company, which terminate on their switch in Iowa somewhere. The calls arriving there, DID-style (never a busy signal at that point, no matter how many people dial your 800 number at one time), are then outdialed to your regular number. It is all very transparent; the only thing an experienced 800 user would notice is there is a slightly longer delay in getting the distant end to ring -- like maybe five seconds longer -- since the call has to go into Telecom*USA's switch and back out again. Maybe this is the program MCI reps have in mind and are trying to describe. They probably mean to say "you get a regular 800 number but no line appearance at your end; it terminates on your regular number." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Date: 29 Oct 90 11:08:56 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <13619@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes: >I don't think I am at liberty to discuss specifics, but it is my >understanding that corrections are now being made and that hopefully >more information about AT&T mail will be more readily available in the >future (outside the TELECOM community, that is). When AT&T first introduced AT&T Mail, they took out full-color full-page ads in many national magazines touting the service. But nowhere in the ad was a number to call for more information. And a call to your local AT&T office would return a "We've never heard of that." As has been discussed in length in this forum in the past, your experiences are typical of those found when dealing with _any_ part of AT&T. We wanted to buy a System 75 for our office but could never find a salesperson who was willing to give us a quote. We bought a competing brand. For the record, when _I_ initially called to order AT&T Mail, I was told that since I didn't have an MS-DOS machine I could not use the service. Only because I repeatedly insisted that I knew that that was not correct was I able to finally order the service. Whether it is e-mail, long distance service, computers, telephone equipment, or documentation, one must be willing to beg and plead if one wishes to buy from AT&T. [Mocderator's Note: So you remember those ads back in 1985 also? Wasn't that a gas! Full page ads in {Info-Week} and various other industry journals, then they told *no one* about it who would be answering calls from customers. I remember seeing the ad in a magazine at my office and calling immediatly -- to sign up on the spot -- and having two reps, two supervisors and one manager insist that I must be trying to buy a Fax machine. A third rep, bless her, thought maybe I was referring to the Reach Out America program. It took me about 6-8 weeks to get a call back from someone who signed me up and that was by me calling them almost weekly. I also got the rap about having an MS-DOS machine and they at first refused to open an account for me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? Date: 29 Oct 90 17:42:59 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept In article <14116@accuvax.nwu.edu> gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >One last thing, it is SOP amongst all the different telcos to charge >*more* every month for touchtone service than for rotary dial? I >thought it worked the other way around. Why, Touchtone is a _feature_! :-) That's why the TelCos I've dealt with - SNET and NYNEX - charge for it. Seriously, you'd think they'd charge more for the pulse system, if only because it ties the line up longer. Pat ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Disabling Call Waiting Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 09:18:06 PST I had a problem with one of the "free" options that comes with a business GTE Mobilnet cellular account, call waiting. For various reasons I do not want call waiting active at any time and have figured out how to disable it until I wish to turn it back on. There is an option for FORWARD-ON-BUSY (*74) and if you program this to forward back to your own cellular number, a call which would normally generate the call waiting clunk will now just get a busy. I have had my service programmed this way for over a month and it seems to work fine (no infinite loops). I don't know if you can set something like this up on regular phone lines, but it could let people turn off call waiting for extended periods such as when you go out and don't want your answering machine interrupted or have a BBS active at night. Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com, 408 356-3886 ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:16:02 GMT In article <14087@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dave Levenson writes: >A technical explanation of the problem, and of why you >believe it's 'their problem' is sometimes required to convince them >that you know what you're talking about. Sometimes a little technical jargon can work wonders. The other day, I had no dial tone. Being a bit suspicious of the behavior of my cordless phone lately (maybe a new battery is in the works) I promptly plugged in my dumb ole 500 set at the main (and only) jack. Still nothing doing. I walked down the street to a payphone and dialled 611. The usual delays later: Me: "I'd like to report my line, XXX-XXXX out of service." 611: "Are you sure the trouble isn't in your phone, sir?" Me: "Yup -- I checked, and there's no dial tone at the demarc." 611: (sigh of relief). "Okay, that's a big help -- we'll get right on it." It turned out to be a major cable break on my block, and was fixed within 24 hours. And all I know about telecom internals is what I've found out reading the Digest in the last two years or so! cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) [Moderator's Note: That's nothing! Three years ago I coodunt evun spel Moddoratur, and now I are one. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #774 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16130; 30 Oct 90 2:44 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18388; 30 Oct 90 1:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16128; 30 Oct 90 0:04 CST Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 23:21:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #775 BCC: Message-ID: <9010292321.ab05754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Oct 90 23:20:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 775 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [John Higdon] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Paul Gauthier] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Russ Kepler] Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Lou Judice] Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [George Peavy] Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [David Lesher] Re: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service [Higdon] Re: Are Indiana White Pages Available on Electronic Media? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [John Cowan] Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Mike Verstegen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? Date: 29 Oct 90 20:34:30 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <14116@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Christopher Gillett writes: > Gillett, Christopher > voice xxx-9020 > data xxx-3691 > ... they got all huffy and inquired as to whether or not I was > running a business, and no, sorry, they couldn't do that unless I > wanted business service. The BILLING name better be yours, but the listing name can be your 'cousin' that lives with you. What is your goldfish's name? We are related to fish somehow, right? ... Use your cat, if you prefer. That will leave you with ONLY your voice line with your name on it, and NO non-listed charges. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? Date: 29 Oct 90 16:19:02 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Christopher Gillett writes: > Further, I don't see why "data line in your home" means "commercial > rates". What is the story here? Have other people encountered > similar listing difficulties with NET or other telcos? How do they know its a "data" line? What communication you put over that line is absolutely and positively none of telco's business. Given that more and more homes are equipped with computers with modems, this attitude would seem a little outdated. I had a little talk with a knowledgeable rep about the attitude concerning modem lines. In my case, with 10 lines, telco had just assumed that it was mostly for data, probably hobby related, rather than assuming that I was running a bookie joint out of my home. No one at Pac*Bell has ever given the impression that the company cared one hoot about whether a line was being used for a modem or not. 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, I would say 'the way they know it is a data line' is because that is the way he asked them to identify it in their directory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 14:12:15 -0400 Throughout this thread on disabling call-waiting on incoming calls it has been stated that you need three-way calling to flash over to another dialtone. On my main voice line I have call-waiting, but not three-way calling. I am still able to flash over and hear the triple dialtone sound followed by a consistant dialtone. From there I can, I can type *70, get a quick set of beeps and then be reconnected to my party. CW is then disabled (I just tried all this as I typed it). I have a data line without call-waiting as well, and I much prefer dialing out on it than my call-waiting equipped line. I find it annoying when trying to terminate calls on the CW-equipped line. I have a tendancy to lift the plunger too quickly causing the phone to think I'm trying to flash. It takes a concious effort to sit there with the plunger down for two or three seconds to be sure it's registering as a hang-up before I can dial out again. I frequently end calls with "ok, I'll call so-and-so and get back to you." and find it annoying when trying to quickly dial out after completing another call. All this information applies to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, BTW. PG gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca tyrant@dalac.bitnet [Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ... or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just dialing *70? Does your new call go through or get denied? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Russ Kepler Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 30 Oct 90 00:19:30 GMT Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM On a similar vein of the call waiting I had an experience that might interest some of the readers (the rest can skip it...) One of my Usenet news feeds became stuck while its owner was out of town. No cause could be found until he got back in town and listened to the call. The modem was on his phone line and the dialer disabled call waiting prior to the call. When the local telco removed call waiting his mode began getting an intercept and a 'your call cannot be...' message. Strange - why couldn't they just ignore it? Seems to me that would be a better solution than the intercept (better yet to return to dial tone.) Russ Kepler - Basis Int'l SNAIL: 5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ PHONE: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 07:31:23 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 29-Oct-1990 1024 Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy A friend of a friend has a part time job with a telemarketer, specifically selling subscriptions to a local newspaper. If you really don't want to just be polite and say no, and you have a tremendous hankering to be devious, just say "I already receive the Mudtown Evening Star!". The person at the other end of the line has no idea whether you're telling the truth or not, but is not going to debate with you and will instantly leave you alone. BTW, I especially enjoy the automated callers, since you can take out lots of fruststration by blasting touchtones or getting your cats to talk into the handset, etc when they record your "name", etc.! :) lou ------------------------------ From: George Peavy Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy Organization: William Carey International University Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:30:07 GMT In article <14115@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Gillett writes: >My assumption is that they have removed my name and telephone number >from a list that they sell to telemarketing outfits. Maybe they do >some sort of blocking out here (doubtful), but whatever they've done, >I simply do not get telemarketer phone calls. [stuff deleted.....] >So, my point is this: if your telco offers not to distribute your >name, then absolutely sign up. This provides no protection from an >automated dialer that calls every number in an exchange looking for >people, but it can significantly reduce the number of junk calls you >receive. And if you do happen to receive a call, just say "no >thank you", and if they don't hang up, then you should. I have no >problem saying "no thank you, have a pleasant day", and then hanging >up. I don't know how New England Telephone does it, but in the front of a Pacific Bell Directory, under the section marked "Doing Business with Us", it notes that in metropolitan areas, there is such a thing as a directory listing phone numbers by addresses for "people who may wish to reach you, but don't know your name". (aaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!). It also notes that you can request to be not listed in this directory. I don't remember if they charge you for it or not. George Peavy (george@wciu.edu) [Moderator's Note: They are just talking about a routine criss-cross directory. The ones from Donnelly Directory, by virtue of being part of the telco empire, only list what the alpha books list, in telephone number order. If you are otherwise non-pub, you won't be in those. The ones from Haynes, R.L. Polk, Dresser's and City Publishing Co. include everything they can find, and your request to them means nothing. They even include what non-pub numbers they can find from other sources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:56:54 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers ]NET (New England Telco) sent me a letter with business reply mail ]postcard shortly after switching on my service. This letter said ]something to the effect of, "if you don't want telemarketers contacting ]you, fill this out and they'll leave you alone". Southern Bell *CHARGES* you for this privilege! Not just ONCE, but monthly. I suspect they then can complain to the PSC that no one uses the service. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service Date: 29 Oct 90 16:10:57 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Andy Jacobson writes: > When I ordered phone service, the Ohio Bell rep (in their > Xenia office) told me that, because the house was in an area zoned for > single family residences, I could only have the class of service that > the other residents of the house had, which was flat rate metro. While I can't speak authoritatively for Ohio, this is probably bogus. As a general rule, if some rep gives you a line like this you should check the tariffs yourself or at the very least, walk the organization. In Pac*BellLand, there are numerous reps who seem to make it up as they go along. In my own residence, I have measured and unmeasured residence service in addition to WATS (a form of business service) and all in the same Commstar (mini-Centrex) group. From time to time over the years, various reps have been aghast at this mix of services, but there is absolutely nothing in the tariffs that prevent such an arrangement. Do not be fooled by a rep's insistance. Adamacy does not mean legality. If you think you are being given a snow job, ask for a quote on the tariff. Example: I have had numerous Digest readers write about unlisted numbers. Reps have repeatedly insisted that the unlisting charge applies to all unlisted lines and applies even if there is listed service in the individual's name at the residence. In this case, the correct policy is given in the Pac*Bell handbook, but it wasn't until the reps were asked to look it up that the real procedure was quoted. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Are Indiana White Pages Available on Electronic Media? Date: 29 Oct 90 18:32:52 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <13845@accuvax.nwu.edu> ghg@ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes: >I have heard (in telecom) that NYNEX and some others are now offering >white pages on CDROM, tapes, etc, alone or with update services. >Anybody know about such a service/product existing for Indiana? Indiana Bell could offer such a service for the parts of the state that they serve, but those would not include such places as Fort Wayne (the second largest city in the state), Lafayette (where Mr. Goble is), and much of the Upper Wabash and Tippecanoe valleys, including the moderately large towns of Wabash and Logansport, all of which are served by GTE. In addition, significant portions of Northern Indiana, including much if not all of Koszciusko County (Warsaw and the heart of the lake resort region) are served by United Telephone. There are also some independent telcos in small rural communities across the northern part of the state, such as the Reservoir Telephone Company which serves much of southern Huntington County. If such a service were to be offered, it would probably be offered by the people who put out the phone-book-on-microfiche collection (University Microfilms of Ann Arbor?), not the telcos themselves. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: And don't forget the northwest corner of Indiana, which, although it has been Indiana Bell for a few years since it got taken over from Illinois Bell is still part of the Chicago metro area listings. Rarely do you see anything from there associated with the 'Indiana Bell' other areas of the state connect with. They seem to do their own thing there, and identify with Illinois, and Illinois Bell's directories, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:43:50 GMT In article <14074@accuvax.nwu.edu>, BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >I even think a SMART local theater might also list the competing >EXPENSIVE adjacent big town theaters as a service and customers >would always call them for ALL movie info and would probably go >to the local one mostly anyway. There exists something analogous to this in New York City now. Calling 212-777-3456 (777-FILM) gets an automated system that lists a large fraction of all theaters in the city and outlying regions. (Non-commercial theaters are not listed.) You can retrieve movies by title (first three letters), category (drama/comedy/horror/action/etc.), or location (enter ZIP code). Once you have narrowed down to a particular movie at a particular theater, you will be given the show times for that movie today. Show times that have already passed are automatically omitted. This service is extremely helpful. It is sponsored by {New York Magazine} (which publishes weekly movie listings and capsule reviews) and radio station WPLJ. There is no charge except normal telco charges, but you must listen to a commercial for an upcoming film when you cfirst connect. There is also an option to find out about upcoming features in the magazine or WPLJ. Of course, you must be able to send DTMF tones to use the service at all. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) ------------------------------ From: Mike Verstegen Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 13:13:28 EST I read with interest (and amusement) your trials and trivulations with the new CLASS services. (I've had some too -- like a crossed translation in a DMS-100 that had all the LD charges cross-billed between my two lines. By the time a year had passed and the problem was cleared, Southern Bell security wanted to know how I knew such things...) As a follow up to you service usage, a note about what you are paying for them might be interesting. Some of the rates I've seen make it look like a customer could pay more for the CLASS special features than for the basic dialtone. When you consider that all this CLASS is just software and some CPU cycles plus disk storage, it seems like an incredible amount of money. Have the PUCs looked into the rates for these services? 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 [Moderator's Note: I'll print some of the rates in a message in the next day or two. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #775 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10800; 31 Oct 90 3:55 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32172; 31 Oct 90 2:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12109; 31 Oct 90 1:26 CST Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 0:40:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #776 BCC: Message-ID: <9010310040.ab22846@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Oct 90 00:40:41 CST Volume 10 : Issue 776 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [William T Sykes] Tones and Country Codes [Clive Feather] Michigan Bell: "For The Time, Dial 1-900" [Sander J. Rabinowitz] A CLASSless Message [Steve Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 16:32:30 EST From: William T Sykes Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC Pat, The following is two articles highlighting the Telephone Pioneers Of America - Old North State Chapter 79, which include AT&T employees and retirees in a number of NC counties. These counties include Alamance, Forsythe, and Guilford, the core counties of what was the North Carolina Works of Western Electric. I believe the Pioneers associated with Southern Bell and the area Independent Telcos participate in other chapters, hence the article publication in an AT&T "in-house" magazine. Comments in brackets [] are mine. Please find room to publish in its entirety, as I believe they deserve the recognition this this forum affords. William T. Sykes Reprinted _with_ permission from AT&T Directions, October 1990 (published for AT&T employees by the Guilford Center Public Relations staff.) [All typos are mine - wts] Copyright AT&T - 1990. "_CONGRATULATIONS - Pioneer Chapter 79 earns national honors for support of Camp Carefree_ Freedom is a precious commodity. Freedom is the priceless gift the Pioneers have helped give children stricken with illnesses like leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, spina bifida and cystic fibrosis. Freedom is Camp Carefree. Located near Stokesdale, Carefree is the only residential camp in North Carolina for children with these types of problems. And its free. Six years ago the camp was just the dream of Anne and Gib Jones, Stokesdale residents who lease 22 acres of their farm to the camp for $1 a year. Today, thanks to the Pioneers and other groups, the dream has mushroomed into a place where special children - walking or in a wheelchair - can go swimming, canoeing, horseback riding and participate in other activities they may never have done before. "The Pioneers have been my security blanket," says Anne, the camp's executive director. "Whenever we have had a pressing need, they have been there to make sure it was taken care of." Over the past four years, 1,500 Pioneers cared enough to spend more than 15,000 hours raising money, building a medical infirmary and a recreation building, and completing three duplex dormitories. "Things kind of snowballed", says Russ Tagert, [Telephone Pioneer] chapter [79] administrator. "We kept asking them what they needed, and they told us." The Pioneers obliged further by building over 500 feet of wheelchair ramps and walks and planting hundreds of shrubs and trees. The Pioneers' dedication to Camp Carefree and the children it serves earned them a [White House] Presidential citation in 1989. And this September, at the Pioneer General Assembly, it earned them the national "People Who Care" award. They were also selected as the number-one chapter among the 105 chapters throughout the U.S. and Canada. "Camp Carefree has been our most challenging, rewarding and exciting activity for many years," Tagert says. "Although our role has certainly been significant, we were not alone. The camp's success has been a total community effort, and we are grateful for the opportunity of helping make it happen." "The real rewards come each summer when the camp swells with laughter and smiles." --Jeanna Baxter [Captions accompanying article photographs (photographs deleted for technical reasons - wts :-) ] "With the support of volunteer counselors, chronically ill children at Camp Carefree spend a fun-filled week participating in activities they never dreamed possible." "Music is among the activities available to Camp Carefree kids. And whether walking or in a wheelchair, they also get the chance to go swimming, canoeing and horseback riding." -------------(Second Directions Article)----------------------- _Chapter 79 Celebrates 20 Years of Service to Local Communities_ "The Pioneers are having a birthday. This year culminates two decades of fellowship, fun and community service for the Old North State Chapter 79. Started July 1, 1970, Chapter 79 is now one of the largest in the association and is a consistent leader in membership and community service, according to Russ Tagert, chapter administrator. Old North State members give more than 500,000 volunteer hours each year and raise more than $100,000 for community service projects. Some highlights of the past 20 years: - rebuilding and refurbishing dormitories for a drug rehabilitation center and the American Children's Home - raising more than $137,000 to restore the Statue of Liberty - treating 1,000 underprivileged children to a tailgate party and Wake Forest football game. - constructing buildings and walkways at Camp Carefree (see previous story above) - building a medical and dental clinic for Greensboro's [NC] inner city - purchasing a $30,000 "Vision Van" for conducting glaucoma screening throughout the state - building 150 wheelchair ramps and other therapeutic devices - cleaning a portion of the Appalachian Trail in the snow - fingerprinting thousands of children - sponsoring "beep-ball" and Easter egg hunts for blind children - holding a fishing rodeo for the indigent and aged - conducting public health fairs in three malls - purchasing a $16,000 van for the food bank" -- Jeanna Baxter [Captions accompanying article photographs (photographs deleted for technical reasons - wts :-) ] "Put together over 100 youngsters at an Easter egg hunt, and you're bound to get some smiles. Each year the Pioneers sponsor the hunt and a pumpkin picking on the [AT&T] Guilford Center grounds for hearing and visually impaired children from the Piedmont." "With the help of law enforcement and community agencies, the Pioneers have fingerprinted more than 32,000 children as part of their Child Safe program." William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsl!wts Phone: 919-228-3265 [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending these items in. I do agree that the Pioneers are a very worthwile organization, and deserving of the publicity they can receive from the Digest. I'm glad to share the news from your local chapter. Are there others out there with important activities going on? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clive Feather Subject: Tones and Country Codes Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 10:02:08 GMT I just received British Telecom's latest international phone guide. A new feature in this is descriptions of the tones used in each country for ringing and engaged. Having merged this with my country codes list, I thought that readers might be interested. A few notes: BT list two country codes I haven't seen before: 905 Turkish Cyprus 290 St. Helena Six countries which are not directly diallable from the UK (and so no country code is given) are not listed in the last table of country codes I took from the Digest. Does anyone know their country codes ? Antarctica Australian Territory Chatham Islands Midway Island Pitcairn Islands Tristan da Cunha Wake Island In v10i763, Jim Rees asks for the shortest world-wide unique number. The guide gives the lengths of numbers for some countries. St. Helena (290) has three digit numbers! Country codes 247, 674, 678, and 680 have four digit numbers. Here is the up-to-date list. Lines beginning with # are comments. Lines beginning with + are continuation lines, and repeat the code and tone info. # Tone codes (first is ring, second is engaged): # A: double ring, repeated regularly (UK ringing tone) # B: equal length on/off tones - about 1Hz (UK & USA engaged tone) # C: slow equal length on/off tones # D: fast equal length on/off tones - 2Hz to 3Hz # E: tones separated by long pauses (USA ringing tone) # F: long tones separated by short pauses 1 NANP (USA, Canada, and the Carribean) +1 AB Anguilla, Dominica, Grenada & Carriacou, Montserrat, +1 AB St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, +1 AB Virgin Islands (UK) +1 CB Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico, +1 CB Virgin Islands (US) +1 EB Barbados, Canada, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, +1 EB United States of America +1 EF Antigua & Barbuda +1 FD Turks and Caicos Islands 20 CF Egypt 210 (reserved for Morocco) 211 (reserved for Morocco) 212 EB Morocco 213 CB Algeria 214 (reserved for Algeria) 215 (reserved for Algeria) 216 EB Tunisia 217 (reserved for Tunisia) 218 CF Libya 219 (reserved for Libya) 220 AB The Gambia 221 CD Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 CB Mali 224 EC Guinea 225 CD Cote d'Ivoire 226 EB Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) 227 CF Niger 228 CB Togolese Republic 229 CB Benin 230 AB Mauritius 231 ED Liberia 232 CB Sierra Leone 233 ED Ghana 234 CF Nigeria 235 CB Chad 236 EB Central African Republic 237 EB Cameroon 238 CD Cape Verde 239 CB Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 EB Gabonese Republic 242 CD Congo 243 CD Zaire 244 CD Angola 245 EC Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego-Garcia 247 [EA]B Ascension Island [4 digit numbers] 248 AB Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 CB Rwandese Republic 251 ED Ethiopia 252 CB Somalia 253 EB Djibouti 254 AF Kenya 255 AD Tanzania including Zanzibar 256 [AC]E Uganda 257 CB Burundi 258 EB Mozambique 259 (assigned to Zanzibar, but use 255 54) 260 EF Zambia 261 CB Madagascar 262 CB Reunion (France) 263 AB Zimbabwe 264 AB Namibia 265 ED Malawi 266 AD Lesotho 267 AB Botswana 268 AB Swaziland 269 Mayotte Island (part of France) and Comoros 27 AB South Africa 290 FB St. Helena [3 figure numbers] 295 ED San Marino (not used at present - 39 541 used) 296 AB Trinidad and Tobago (not used at present - 1 809 used) 297 EB Aruba 298 ED Faroe Islands 299 ED Greenland 30 ED Greece 31 ED Netherlands 32 CD Belgium 33 CB France (Metropolitan), Andorra (33 628), Monaco (33 93) 34 ED Spain 350 AB Gibraltar 351 EB Portugal 352 ED Luxembourg 353 AB Eire (Irish Republic) 354 CD Iceland 355 Albania 356 AB Malta 357 AF Cyprus 358 ED Finland 359 ED Bulgaria 36 FD Hungary 37 ED Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR) 38 E[BD] Yugoslavia 39 ED Italy, San Marino (39 541, see also 295), Vatican City (39 6 6982) 40 CB Romania 41 EB Switzerland, Liechtenstein (41 75) 42 ED Czechoslovakia 43 ED Austria 44 AB United Kingdom 45 BD Denmark 46 ED Sweden 47 ED Norway 48 EB Poland 49 ED Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion) 500 EB Falkland Islands 501 ED Belize 502 CD Guatemala 503 EB El Salvador 504 CD Honduras 505 EB Nicaragua 506 EB Costa Rica 507 EA Panama 508 CB St. Pierre et Miquelon (France) 509 [EF]B Haiti 51 EB Peru 52 ED Mexico 53 CB Cuba 54 EB Argentina 55 EB Brazil 56 AB Chile 57 ED Colombia 58 CD Venezuela 590 CF Guadeloupe (France), including St. Barthelemy and French side +590CF of St. Martin 591 EB Bolivia 592 AB Guyana 593 ED Ecuador 594 ED French Guiana 595 EB Paraguay 596 CB Martinique (part of France) 597 EB Suriname 598 EB Uruguay (East Republic) 599 EB Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, +599EB Bonaire) 60 AB Malaysia 61 AB Australia 62 EB Indonesia 63 EB Philippines 64 AB New Zealand 65 AB Singapore 66 ED Thailand 670 EB Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan) 671 EB Guam 672 AB Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, +672AB Cocos I.) 673 AB Brunei Darrusalm 674 EB Nauru [4 digit numbers] 675 AB Papua New Guinea 676 EB Tonga 677 DB Solomon Islands 678 ED Vanuatu (New Hebrides) [4 digit numbers] 679 AF Fiji Islands 680 EB Palau [4 digit numbers] 681 Wallis and Futuna 682 AB Cook Islands 683 Niue Island 684 EB American Samoa 685 AB Western Samoa 686 EB Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands) 687 CB New Caledonia 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands), Saipan 689 CB French Polynesia 690 Tokelan (Tokelau ?) 691 EB F.S. of Polynesia (Micronesia ?) 692 EB Marshall Islands 7 EB Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 81 EB Japan 82 FB Korea (Republic of) (South) 84 Viet Nam 850 ED Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 852 AB Hong Kong 853 EB Macao 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 86 CB China (866 assigned to Taiwan, but see also 886) 870 Reserved for Inmarsat 871 Inmarsat (Atlantic East) 872 Inmarsat (Pacific) 873 Inmarsat (Indian) 874 Inmarsat (Atlantic West) 875 Reserved for Inmarsat 876 Reserved for Inmarsat 877 Reserved for Inmarsat 878 Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes 879 Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes 880 AB Bangladesh 886 EB Taiwan (normally used, but not CCITT allocation - see 866) 90 EB Turkey, Turkish Cyprus (90 5) 91 AB India 92 [EA][BD] Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 94 AB Sri Lanka 95 EB Burma 960 AF Maldives 961 CB Lebanon 962 AB Jordan 963 EB Syrian Arab Republic 964 AB Iraq 965 EB Kuwait 966 EB Saudi Arabia 967 EB Yemen Arab Republic 968 FB Oman 969 ED Yemen Democratic Republic (united with Y.A.R. 967) 971 AB United Arab Emirates 972 EB Israel 973 AB Bahrain 974 AB Qatar 975 AC Bhutan 976 Mongolia 977 CE Nepal 98 ED Iran Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk [x, not ixi] | 62-74 Burleigh St. ...!uunet!ixi!clive | Cambridge CB1 1OJ Phone: +44 223 462 131 | United Kingdom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 01:29 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Michigan Bell: "For the time, dial 1-900 . . ." Reports received from WWJ-AM radio tonight indicate that people dialing the Michigan Bell operator to obtain the time were instructed to dial a 900 number set up for the purpose. The operators themselves were instructed by Michigan Bell superiors to do this and apparently had no choice in the matter. Detroit-area callers can continue to get the time WITHOUT CHARGE by dialing 472-1212. For how much longer this is in effect remains to be seen. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:12 EDT From: Subject: A CLASSless message When dialling *60 from a phone without CLASS services in NJ Bell territory, I get the curious message "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please check your instruction manual or call the business office for assistance." Either * or # followed by two digits seems to produce this message. Steve Kass, Dept. of Math/CS, Drew U., Madison, NJ 07940 - skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #776 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11739; 31 Oct 90 4:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16395; 31 Oct 90 3:34 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32172; 31 Oct 90 2:30 CST Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 1:28:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #777 BCC: Message-ID: <9010310128.ab15601@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Oct 90 01:27:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 777 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ancient ANI [John Cowan] Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Terry Kennedy] Re: Criss-Cross (was Telemarketers...) [Dave Levenson] Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [John R. Covert] Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Doug Faunt] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Paul Gauthier] Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [John Higdon] Re: 800 Numbas [Bill Huttig] Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Merlyn LeRoy] Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Jim Youll] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Ancient ANI Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:34:12 GMT In article <14027@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >Trivia department: We saw a few very long phone numbers on this list a >few weeks back. What's the shortest phone number (including country >code) in the world? What's the longest? To qualify, it's got to be a >world-wide unique number, diallable from anywhere ("0" doesn't count). I am informed that the CCITT mandates that the longest legal phone number is 12 digits long. I am not sure whether this is meant to include or exclude country code, so the longest legal phone number is either 12 or 15 digits. I doubt that any actual phone numbers exceed 12 digits today; the NANP, the U.K, and France (the only cases I have at hand) are all 11 digits or less including country code. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) [Moderator's Note: But I think the original author was talking about the total number of pulses when dialing with a rotary phone, as opposed to simply how many digits had to be dialed in total. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) Date: 29 Oct 90 23:46:04 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article <14038@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: > I have been trying to help a non-profit organization cope with the > people at New Jersey Bell who don't give a s--- whether or not the > Centrex service works for them. It all started when it wasn't > possible to disable call forwarding. Several calls to NJ Bell over > two weeks resulted in no action from NJ Bell. Well, I co-manage a 600-line chunk of Centrex for my employer (St. Peter's College) in Jersey City, NJ. We have the option called CCRS (Customer Con- trolled Rearrangement Service, or Completely Chaotic Random Scrambling, as you prefer 8-). This is a dialup service that lets you verify and/or change the service characteristics for each of your Centrex lines. That's the good news - the bad news is that this doesn't directly manipulate the switch data- base - it just generates "requests" to change things. Thus, you can get out of sync with the switch on occasion. On the few cases where that happens, I call the CCRS manager (_not_ repair service) and ask him to re-sync the switch with the database during the next overnight. I have had one case where that didn't help - one bank of lines wouldn't accept TT dialing, no matter what we did. Repair service didn't want to hear about it - "You have to configure that in your Centrex", etc. Finally I got them to run some tests on it - one complete bank was mis-configured and would not respond to TT. In any event, if you have enough lines to justify it (or if you can convince NJB to give it to you so you'll go away 8-), I'd suggest getting the CCRS so you can manipulate this stuff yourself. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Criss-Cross (was Telemarketers...) Date: 31 Oct 90 04:25:39 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <14148@accuvax.nwu.edu>, george@wciu.edu (George Peavy) writes: > I don't know how New England Telephone does it, but in the front of a > Pacific Bell Directory, under the section marked "Doing Business with > Us", it notes that in metropolitan areas, there is such a thing as a > directory listing phone numbers by addresses for "people who may wish > to reach you, but don't know your name". > [Moderator's Note: They are just talking about a routine criss-cross > directory. The ones from Donnelly Directory, by virtue of being part > of the telco empire, only list what the alpha books list, in telephone > number order. If you are otherwise non-pub, you won't be in those. The > ones from Haynes, R.L. Polk, Dresser's and City Publishing Co. include > everything they can find, and your request to them means nothing. They > even include what non-pub numbers they can find from other sources. > PAT] In Santa Fe, NM, I noticed last week, Mountain Bell publishes the standard white pages listing three times in the same volume: Once by name (like every other white pages I've ever seen), once by address, and once by telephone numer. It makes the phone book for this city of about 50,000 as big as some metro-suburban directories around here which contain only the alphabetical listings! Does any other telco publish these criss-cross listings in the standard phone book that gets circulated to everybody? Does Mountain Bell (or US West) do this throughout their serving 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 09:32:32 PST From: "John R. Covert 30-Oct-1990 1229" Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? I've been through this with NET and the Massachusetts DPU. Residence listings must be simply "the name you go by" and optionally your spouses name in addition. So there should be no problem being listed as either Christopher or Chris; your choice. You can optionally be listed as "Christopher & nn". You can't do anything else in a residence listing, and the DPU will back NET up on this. Unless you have a reason for wanting the data line to be listed, you can solve the problem of people getting the wrong number by requesting that it be non-pub. (Not unlisted -- the rep will hear non-listed, which means D.A. has it but the printed directory doesn't.) There is no charge for non-pub numbers which are additional lines at the same address as your main number. john [Moderator's Note: John, isn't there an exception made by the DPU, (as in most states) for the phrase 'TTY' in front of a phone number? TTY of course implies a form of data service, but it is there not so much to identify a line as handling data as it is to clue in callers that the recipient is deaf. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 09:16:22 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? If you want to check out the Oakland CA 'phone book, you can see how I did it. Three lines, listed as Faunt Doug (that I answer), Faunt D (has never gotten any calls, but there's an answering machine on it), and Faunt Computer (my "middle name" :-)). ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Tue, 30 Oct 1990 13:58:02 -0400 In article <14145@accuvax.nwu.edu> gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) writes: >[Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would >a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no >place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ... >or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial >an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just >dialing *70? Does your new call go through or get denied? PAT] When you attempt to dial you get a rapid busy signal type tone. Thus, the call is denied. Something else that's interesting is that if I pick up the phone right now and receive a *real* dialtone I can do a flash and obtain a secondary dialtone exactly like the one described before. This secondary dialtone is discernable from a regular dialtone because when it begins you hear a 'triple dialtone' kind of like someone flicking the sound on and off three times quickly; then comes a normal sounding dialtone. Trying to dial on this secondary dialtone, even if it is obtained straight from a normal dialtone via flash, gets you the same rapid busy signal. Also of interest is the fact that once you commence dialing a number on your normal dialtone until you are connected (actually have someone answer the other end) a flash terminates that call, and does not simply offer you a secondary dialtone. No matter how you obtain one of those secondary dialtones (whether from a regular dialtone or in mid-call) another flash will return you to where you came from (the regular dialtone or the other call). "*70", as mentioned before disables call waiting in mid call and puts you back through to your party. Hope someone finds this trivia interesting. I assume that as well as performing call-waiting disabling from this secondary dialtone you can initiate a 3-way call, or work with any of the other special features offered (like call-forwarding) if you've paid for them (I haven't, so I don't know much about them). gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca tyrant@dalac ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 30 Oct 90 21:06:24 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 29 at 23:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would > a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no > place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ... > or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial > an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just > dialing *70? Does your new call go through or get denied? PAT] If it had been Pac*Bell, it could have been something like this: (From the Pac*Bell Slameroo Dept.) A friend of mine who writes for a crackpot audio magazine moved a few years back from Sunnyvale to Mountain View. We were talking and he got call-waited. When he returned, he commented, "This is so confusing. Call Waiting works differently here in Mt. View than it did in Sunnyvale. It's much more complicated." Bzzzt! What??? I inquired further. "In Sunnyvale, when I got a call-wait, I simply flashed the hook and got the second call. Now, I have to flash, get dial tone, then dial '*9'." "What other features do you have?", I asked. "None." So then I told him the bad news. He had been "upsold" into Commstar (mini-Centrex). He didn't even realize that he had three-way calling, which is intregal to Commstar. I told him that he was paying about 8 dollars too much and told him what to say to the rep. If you flash during the call with Commstar (without being call-waited) you will get second dial tone which can call the world. BTW, the "Commstar Slam" was accomplished by implying to the customer "that's the way it works now". The customer was led to believe that Commstar was prerequisite to custom calling. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: 800 Numbas Date: 30 Oct 90 17:01:00 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA offers no such package. What they offer >are regular 800 numbers, from the block of same assigned to their >company, which terminate on their switch in Iowa somewhere. The calls >arriving there, DID-style (never a busy signal at that point, no I wonder what percent of 800 numbers are DID type? >matter how many people dial your 800 number at one time), are then >outdialed to your regular number. It is all very transparent; the only I assume MCI's version will do this also, so if you had lines in a hunt group or with busy/noanswer forwarding then you would have multi-800 lines. >thing an experienced 800 user would notice is there is a slightly >longer delay in getting the distant end to ring -- like maybe five >seconds longer -- since the call has to go into Telecom*USA's switch I can tell it seems like forever. I have one of their 800 #'s from ATC (800-780-xxxx). When you someone hangs up on the 800 number the line still rings for a short period of time. >and back out again. Maybe this is the program MCI reps have in mind >and are trying to describe. They probably mean to say "you get a >regular 800 number but no line appearance at your end; it terminates >on your regular number." PAT] MCI reps where not trained properly on it. I had a question and asked the 800 order dept to call me back on a 407-676 number which is one of my home lines. They called me back on my Ring Master number of that line which is 407-952-xxxx. I asked how they got the other # and they would admit to checking my existing MCI account ... (Thats the only place they have it) I wish MCI would offer the option of not haveing the four digit security code on the number. Also they could offer remote programming like C&W does. I have lost the number to Calble and Wireless. Could someone send it to me? ------------------------------ From: "Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy" Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:33:20 GMT >try calling 1-202-653-1800 Sunday morning at 1:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time > ... after the talking clock reaches 1:59:50 Eastern Daylight Time, it >will tell you the time is 1:00:00 Eastern Standard Time ... When they insert leap-seconds at the end of the year, does it state the time as 11:59:50 ... 11:59:60 ... 12:00:00 ? Just Wondering, Merlyn LeRoy [Moderator's Note: No they don't, but that is due to the message length. They actually only give the time twice every fifteen seconds, at ten and then five second intervals. The entire fifteen second message goes like this: (in the first nine seconds) "US Naval Observatory Master Clock: At the tone, Eastern Standard (Daylight) Time, H hours, M minutes, S seconds." Or the word 'exactly' in lieu of zero seconds. Then a one second signal tone, followed by (in the next four seconds) "Universal Time, H hours, M minutes, S seconds." In this rendition, S has been incremented by 5. Another one second signal tone, then back to the first message. There isn't enough time to speak the entire message every five seconds, let alone every second. On ocassions of adding a leap-second, they simply stall the rendition for an additional second. This organization, the US NAVOSY, was responsible for setting all the Western Union master clocks throughout the USA for a half-century. Ask me about the Western Union Clock Service sometime. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 19:19:46 -0500 From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I once had a nifty program which called NBS and synchronized my computer's clock with theirs. My copy on disk broke a couple of years ago, and I lost the spare which was in my library of diskettes. Per your previous posting, I thought you might have a copy of this program, or could tell me where to find it. It was accompanied by some very interesting text about how the two computers negotiate their connection, determine what the various delays are, and ultimately get the two clocks (somewhat) in sync. Thanks in advance, Jim PS: TELECOM Digest is great reading... [Moderator's Note: Readers? Can anyone send Jim the program he wants, or advise him which public directory he can ftp to get it? PAT] PS: I think so too! :) Thanks for writing. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #777 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12783; 31 Oct 90 6:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19374; 31 Oct 90 4:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16395; 31 Oct 90 3:34 CST Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 3:29:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #778 BCC: Message-ID: <9010310329.ab19998@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Oct 90 03:28:51 CST Volume 10 : Issue 778 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley] Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Tim Oldham] Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [Nigel Allen] Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Paul S. Sawyer] Supervision? [Bill Higgins] Can I Get ISDN For my Home? [Ross Garrett Cutler] Cellular Daily Roaming urcharge $4.00 Per Day? [Brian Litzinger] MNP Drivers for MS-DOS [Joel Disini] T1 Interface Connector [Kent Hauser] LD to Hawaii [Steve Elias] New Prefixes in Maryland [Carl Moore] SLIP Wanted [David E. Martin] AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail [Scott Barnes] Interlock For Two Phones [Tim Stradtman] FAX Paper Ordering [Jens von der Heide] IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes' [Eddy J. Gurney] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 05:20:26 GMT In article <14094@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator comments: >[Moderator's Note: Well, yours is the only instance I've heard of >where one can flash and get dial tone without having three way calling >installed. I think its great that they extend dial tone after flashing >when the only apparent need (in your case) is to dial *70. I'm curious >to know what happens if you try anything else with the interim dial >tone you are given. Ever tried another call, for example? What >happens then? PAT] It seems that they did provide recall dialtone only to block call-waiting. If I try to transfer I receive re-order tone, if I try to use any of the other DMS codes I receive re-order. If I flash an existing call and hang up it does not ring me back. (#$!?) :) vance ------------------------------ From: tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 14:09:58 GMT In the UK, (BT) charges for directory inquires are to be brought in next year. (Mercury, the only other carrier, has always charged, I believe.) This has lead to BT offering two alternative services for inquiries; an dial-up on-line inquiries database, via modem (although I'm not sure what speeds are to be offered; V.32 at best, I imagine) and a CD-ROM + PC software solution. With the former, you pay only for the call into the database, which is at local rates. With the latter, I believe the charge will be c. 2200 pounds sterling per annum, which gives you quarterly releases of the entire UK phone book on CD-ROM and suitable software for a PC. Data is stored in encrypted form on the CD; reverse inquiries are "impossible". (Read: not worthwhile in sensible compute time). The only thing that puzzles me is exactly how you manage the logistics of having a CD-ROM/PC solution. What do people see as a sensible way of working? Switchboard having the PC and doing inquiries for you? Surely a dedicated own-company inquiry service is OTT? And the trouble with the dial-up solution is surely the sheer amount of time needed to do a simple inquiry. Other solutions? Of course, a networked inquiries server would be fine by me, but I'm not at all sure that that's actually possible with the s/w being offered. Presumably it wouldn't make BT enough money to recoup the development costs. Disclaimer: while I work for BT, I have no connection with directory inquiries or even the phone system in general. These are my opinions and questions, not BT's. Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo ------------------------------ From: ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) Subject: Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation Reply-To: ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 08:09:03 GMT I don't think that there's anything morally wrong about encouraging people to write (electronically or physically) to the chairman of AT&T. That having been said, I should point out that corporate chief executives have staffs of people to screen their mail. Vice-presidents are more likely to read mail addressed to them. So does anyone want to post the e-mail address of the AT&T vice-president responsible for international long distance, and an MCI regional vice-president or two? Nigel Allen telephone (416) 535-8916 52 Manchester Avenue fax (4167) 978-7552 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 13:15:33 GMT In article <13886@accuvax.nwu.edu> vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 752, Message 7 of 10 >Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX. . . . >In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels) >writes: >>Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] >I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :) Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS.... ??? Our short call threshold is 0.9 min. domestic and 1.4 min. foreign, (billing for 1 min. and over and 1.5 min. and over, respectively) so customers get a pretty good free short call benefit. I would much rather have the answer supervision, though. Paul S. Sawyer paul@unhtel.uucp {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services p_sawyer1@unhh.unh.edu Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:07 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: What is "Supervision"? I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I just understood one jargon word. What is meant by "supervision?" Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ------------------------------ From: Ross Garrett Cutler Subject: Can I Get ISDN For my Home? Reply-To: Ross Garrett Cutler Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 03:22:23 GMT Hello, I just read an blurb in the Nov. Byte about an ISDN card for PCs that sells for ~$1600. Could someone please tell me where ISDN is being used? I didn't think it was being implemented. Most importantly, can I use it for my home to hook up to Internet (making my modem obsolete)? Thanks very much! Please email -- I'll summarize. Ross Cutler University of Maryland, College Park Internet: rgc@wam.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 05:13:09 GMT My cellular phone was parked in one spot for two days out of my standard service area. I made several calls each day, and I knew that my phone was roaming. I had heard about daily service charges of $2 per day in some areas. I checked my roaming rate chart, and there was no daily roaming charge in the area that I was in. Well, the bill and apparently the truth has now arrived. I don't so much mind the $2.00 per day charge, but two $2.00 per day charges per day? I asked my celluar carrier about the $2.00 per day charge when my chart said they were no per day charges in that area. They responded that I should have dialed *611 and gotten the information that was accurate for the particular minute is was planning to dial during 8-). Now what about the two $2.00 per day day charges? In my bill they look like: xxx-xxx-xxxx: ROAMER CALL: Sacramento, CA: MCCAW CELLUALR COMM PLACE & NUMBER DATE TIME OTHER TAX TOTAL DAILY CHRG 001-29 - Jul 29 12:00A 2.00 .02 2.02 ... xxx-xxx-xxxx: ROAMER CALL: Stockton, CA: MCCAW CELLUALR COMM PLACE & NUMBER DATE TIME OTHER TAX TOTAL DAILY CHRG 002-33 - Jul 29 12:00A 2.00 .02 2.02 ... My phone didn't budge an inch during that day. Also, about half the calls I placed and was billed for failed to go through. So what is the deal? Do I pay? I can't wait till they have about 40 different services in the same area so my roaming charge will be $80 a day! 8-) <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian <> Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong. ------------------------------ Subject: MNP Drivers for MS-DOS From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" Date: 30 Oct 90 11:15 GMT Greetings, Does anyone know of an MNP driver for MS-DOS that can be used w/ various telecomm apps (so that ordinary modems may connect with MNP modems)? I have seen MTE, an MNP Terminal Emulator by MagicSoft of Lombard, IL (312) 953-2374 but I would like to use some other terminal emulators with heavier scripting functions (together with such an MNP driver)... Sincerely, joel disini Please cc: your responses please, as I am not on this list. ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: T1 Interface Connector Date: 30 Oct 90 17:09:00 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC What physical connectors are commonly used to connect T1 trunks to devices which terminate many lines (like a DACS)? I've looked in 47 CFR 68.500 & can't find anything. The channel banks I've seen just have the big wire-wrap pins. Is there something more modern/better? Thanks. Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.uu.net (202) 408-0841 ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: LD to Hawaii Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 12:44:17 -0500 From: Steve Elias I called Hawaii a couple o times last month on US Sprint. don't know if they have fiber to Hawaii, but the sound quality was great. There were no weird echo-cancelling noises, but I did notice that there was a short time delay occuring, so perhaps a satellite link was involved. ; Steve Elias, eli@pws.bull.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax) ; 508 294 7556 (work phone) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 13:04:00 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: New Prefixes in Maryland Area code 301: 996 (formerly serving area near Stewartstown, Pa.?) is now at Elkton. This puts it two exchanges away from Newport, Delaware, which includes 302-996; but Elkton has no local service to Delaware, even though Delaware is right next door. Also, I just got a look at the new (Oct. 1990) Northeastern Maryland call guide (Harford County edition), and find these prefixes I had not seen before: 307 Towson; 316 Cockeysville, 569; Edgewood. Comments: Towson and Cockeysville are NORTHERN suburbs of Baltimore (notice the N0X/N1X prefixes above); I know of no N0X/N1X prefixes in Virginia beyond the DC calling area, and I am sure Maryland has shorter supply of phone numbers than does area 703, which includes Va. suburbs of DC. 569 is Edgewood (verified by checking with AT&T operator and by dialing 569-xxxx from pay phone and having it treated as local call); thus 569 has vanished from Severn. 569 at Severn was a local call from 621,261,etc., but had to be dialed 1-301-569-xxxx from those places because of 569 also being used at Springfield, Va. (703 area); what becomes of subscribers who were on 301-569 at Severn? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 15:14:21 EST From: David E Martin Subject: SLIP Wanted Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL Does anyone know where I can ftp a copy of SLIP? I would like to run IP over a normal telephone line to share some license tokens. Also, does anyone have any experience hooking two Sun's together via TCP-IP over regular phone lines? David E. Martin AT&T Bell Laboratories 200 Park Plaza, Rm 2B-514 Naperville, IL 60566 USA phone: +1 708 713-5121 ax: +1 708 713-7098 E-mail: dem@iexist.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 19:19:17 EST From: Scott Barnes Subject: AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail Over the past few months, I have been unable to place modem calls using Least Cost Route (LCR) long distance on our Rolm CBX 9000 PBX. The calls do complete, but the local and remote modems usually refuse to handshake. This probably sounds like a typical modem failure, but there is a twist to the problem. Explicit AT&T credit card modem calls are successful, as are local calls. I have duplicated this situation several times using different modems. The problem seems to lie somewhere outside the Rolm system, but I have been unable to put my finger on it. Is is possible that one of the LCR carriers has an entire rack of faulty equipment (i.e., distorting the frequency of the call)? Would the LCR trunks be distinct from AT&T and local trunks in the Rolm system? Any clues or assistance would be appreciated, as I would like to know what I'm talking about before I report this problem. Scott Barnes University of Rochester sba8_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ------------------------------ From: Tim Stradtman Subject: Interlock For Two Phones Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:09:52 GMT Recently there was an article referring to a simple gadget that would interlock two phones so that only one could be in use at a time. I beleive it referenced an article in _Popular Electronics_. However, our library doesn't carry PE, and I couldn't get the article. Can anyone help me?? Thanks, Tim Stradtman tim@ncoast.org or uunet!cwjcc!ncoast!tim or ak215@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: motcid!oslo!jens@uunet.uu.net From: Jens von der Heide Subject: FAX Paper Ordering Organization: Motorola Inc., Software Research and Development, Rolling Meadows, IL Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 18:18:35 GMT This is sort of a silly question, but, when sending documents via FAX, should they be sent in order, or in reverse order (EG: First page first VS First page last) ? Is this addressed in the CCITT standards ? jens@corp.mot.com Voice: (708) 576-3312 UUCP: uunet!motcid!jens [Moderator's Note: I assume your thinking is when the paper falls out of the machine into the collection tray on the other end they will wind up in order with the first page on top if you send them backwards. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Subject: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes' Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 23:13:18 GMT Since a few weeks ago (or was it a few months? :-) there was a discussion about the Ramparts article on how to make your own "black box", I thought everyone on the net might be interested to know that in the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum (November, 1990), on pages 117-119, there's an interesting article entitled "The Great Blue Box Phone Frauds", subtitled "Until the phone company separated signaling information from the voice signal, long-distance calls could be made without charge by anyone who could whistle at 2600 hertz." It even has the illustration from the June 1972 "Ramparts" magazine, showing how to constuct a "black box" to prevent the calling party from being billed for the call. There's also a list of about five or six other references at the end of the article which sound interesting. I'd type in the article, but it's a full three pages long. :-) If someone with a scanner wants to do it, be my guest. (I'm not sure what the IEEE's policy on redistribution is, I couldn't find anything in the TOC...) For what it's worth, Eddy J. Gurney N8FPW THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP eddy@jafus.mi.org gurney@frith.egr.msu.edu 17158EJG@MSU.BITNET (Preferred) (If your mail bounces) (If you HAVE to :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #778 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21574; 1 Nov 90 18:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07634; 1 Nov 90 17:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17278; 1 Nov 90 3:11 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26888; 1 Nov 90 1:51 CST Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 1:49:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #779 BCC: Message-ID: <9011010149.ab04388@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Nov 90 01:49:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 779 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [David Lemson] Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [John Wheeler] Program to Call US Naval Observatory [David Dodell] Re: What is "Supervision"? [Floyd Davidson] Re: What is "Supervision"? [Tom Gray] Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [Jeffri H. Frontz] Re: Tones and Country Codes [Spyros C. Bartsocas] Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations [Chris Johnson] Re: FAX Paper Ordering [Ernest H. Robl] Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Dan Ross] Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Martin Baines] Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Bob Goudreau] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:16:23 CST From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind A few years ago I listened at midnight on December 31st (well, I guess it was technically January 1st) to the National Bureau of Standards' broadcast of radio station WWV so I could hear the leap second. The way they used to broadcast the time was "Fourteen hours, thirteen minutes, Coordinated Universal Time ... BEEP" With a click each second. I counted the clicks, waiting for midnight. What they did was simply add an extra "click" for the leap second. On hours and quarter hours, WWV offers "interesting" information between the minute-beeps, such as sunspot pattern. The minute after the leap second was added, they gave a message about how the extra second was added. WWV is on several "shortwave" frequencies, including 15.000 MHz, 10.000 MHz, and a few others I can't remember right now. David Lemson, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 16:35:14 pst From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind I call (303) 499-7111 (a line to the Nat'l Bureau of Standards) for a voice rendition of the NBS time. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: The only reason I do not often recommend this one is because you only get the voice time announcement once a minute. On the NAVOSBY system you can be on and off in about 15 secons or less. On the NBS line, its conceivable you could be charged for a two minute phone call if you happen to come in a couple seconds before the minute. But their other announcements on the quarter hour are worthwhile also sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Date: 1 Nov 90 00:43:14 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >For a voice rendition: > 1-202-653-1800 If you don't want to pay a premium > 1-900-410-TIME If you don't mind paying a little extra > Let us not forget the NIST WWV phone version at (303)499-7111. If you call at the top of the hour, you'll hear the complete station ID and address info. John Wheeler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 18:54:45 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Program to Call US Naval Observatory From: Jim Youll >I once had a nifty program which called NBS and synchronized my >computer's clock with theirs. My copy on disk broke a couple of years >ago, and I lost the spare which was in my library of diskettes. I have a program used on Fidonet, that is called USNO.EXE ... I don't know if it will run on a standalone machine without some of the fidonet index files, but I have placed it on my host for ftp. Connect to asuvax.eas.asu.edu directory stjhmc program: usno.exe usno ? gives directions. Let me know if it works for you. Also if it does work, I can try and fine the whole program with docs so our moderator could put it in the TELECOM Digest ftp site. David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"? Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 14:50:59 GMT In article <14174@accuvax.nwu.edu> HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I >just understood one jargon word. >What is meant by "supervision?" Supervision in it's simplest terms is any control signal that indicates whether your phone is on hook or off hook. When you go off hook the line switcher see's that there is now current on your loop (off hook supervison) ... You dial your friend in Alaska and your toll switch needs to know when the distant end is off hook... That used to be done with a 2600 Hertz tone on the circuit, but now it is sent via a data circuit that is entirely separate from the circuit you talk on. Technically any control signal that indicates the status of one part of a circuit, or piece of equipment, to another is a supervisory signal. But what everyone is always refering to is hookswitch supervison. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"? Date: 31 Oct 90 16:09:58 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <14174@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I >just understood one jargon word. >What is meant by "supervision?" Control information is sent two ways on a telephone loop. Outgoing (ie from telephone to CO/PBX or the originating side of a trunk), its called signalling. Incoming (ie from CO/PBX to telephone or the terminating side of a trunk its called SUPERVISION. There is a special type of supervision called answer supervision, which indocates that the called end has answered and the call is completed and later that the called end has released. Hope this helps - forward and back - siganlling and supervision. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:23:43 EST From: Jeffri H Frontz Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed Organization: Jeff's Telephone & Telegraph, Columbus, Ohio In article <14030@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004056081@mcimail.com (George S Thurman) writes: > Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms) > the difference between SS7 and CCIS. Well, here in CNI (Common Network Interface -- we do the signaling portion of all US versions and some international versions of AT&T's switches, STPs and NCPs), we use SS7 and CCS7 interchangeably to refer to the North American adaptation of the CCITT Signaling System #7 (commonly referred to around here as CCITT7). CCIS is usually used to refer to CCS6 or to CCS6 traffic transported via CCS7 (actually, ECIS, Embedded Common channel Interoffice Signaling, is a more appropriate term for the latter). Jeff Frontz Work: +1 614 860 2797 AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356) Cornet: 353-2797 att!jeff.frontz jeff.frontz@att.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:53:43 -0500 From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" Subject: Re:Tones and Country Codes > BT list two country codes I haven't seen before: > 905 Turkish Cyprus This is not a country code. There is no such country as Turkish Cyprus. I assume BT refers to the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus (Cyprus has country code of 357). Country code 90 is Turkey, they are just advertising (for political reasons) how to reach a certain area of the teritory they control. Spyros Bartsocas scb@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 20:04:57 GMT Does anyone have an address, or a contact where I could get the address, of someone at AT&T who might be interested in seeing evidence of repeated slamming of its customers by MCI? I thought I read in the news that AT&T was suing MCI for that specific reason in court. MCI has slammed me twice, the second time against my specific instructions to leave my service exactly as it was and not to touch or change anything. I'm writing to the FCC and others about it, but I thought AT&T might be interested since it's they who have lost revenue from a paying customer (me) in both cases. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 ------------------------------ From: "Ernest H. Robl" Subject: Re: FAX Paper Ordering Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 21:03:31 GMT In article <14184@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jens@corp.mot.com (Jens von der Heide) writes: > This is sort of a silly question, but, when sending documents > via FAX, should they be sent in order, or in reverse order (EG: First > page first VS First page last) ? > Is this addressed in the CCITT standards ? I don't know about standards, but there are a couple of things to consider: (1) Some cheap FAX machines -- like mine at home -- do not provide automatic paper cutting. Instead the machine simply prints a line between pages. Pages are printed continuously in the order received. (2) Some fax machines (most?) automatically print a page number at the top of each page. I'm not sure whether this is done on the sending or receiving end. Based on the above considerations, I would ALWAYS load the paper in such a way that the first page is sent first and the last page last. (Some machines want pages loaded face up, or face down, and they may feed off the top or bottom of the stack. You mileage may vary :-) For machines which cut pages and stack them in reverse order, sorting should be a trivial task. Ernest "My other computer is a Nikon N8008." -- Ernest H. Robl Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) Durham, NC, USA (919) 286-3845 ------------------------------ From: Dan Ross Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell Date: 31 Oct 90 21:13:58 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept In article <14022@accuvax.nwu.edu> eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 763, Message 2 of 10 >In article <13855@accuvax.nwu.edu> I (dross@cs.wisc.edu) write: >Future Change in Local Usage Service >>[elimination of all residential local call plans; replacement with >>"Volume Discount Plan," with sliding scaled prices on calls...] >I like unlimited local calling. I'd rather pay for touch tone and >still have that option available than get touch tone for free and have >to pay for all the local calls my computer makes. > Eddy J. Gurney N8FPW THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP I don't know that the tariff was trading unlimited calling for touch-tone. Even if it was, unlimited calling puts a load on the local phone network (if taken advantage of), contrasted with touch-tone which costs the phone company nothing (at this point). I was getting pretty tired of waiting for my push- button phone to complete the dialling sequence, but didn't see why the phone company should charge for touch-tone when the equipment had been already put in place. Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines - Sun UK - Technical Account Executive Cambridge Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 Date: 31 Oct 90 12:47:15 GMT Reply-To: Martin.Baines@uk.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd |> >TELEPHONE SERVICES: A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID' |> >in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for |> >the surplus calls. The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are |> >demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling |> >costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the |> >payments American carriers make. |> Would someone care to tell us how they might enforce this? Americans |> are much more dependent on international phone calls for their |> international business; Europeans and I suspect residents of other |> countries are much more likely to use correspondence and/or TELEX than |> intercontinental phone calls. Come again? Exports from the US account for about 10% GDP, for the UK and Germany this figure is nearer 50%, so why should we us the phone less? |> So if the FCC limits how much AT&T can pay the German TELEKOM or the |> Austrian PTT, etc., and as a result these foreign phone companies |> simply suspend telephone service to the US, it would primarily affect |> U.S. businesses. It's worse than you think, all of the fixed cables across the atlantic terminate either in the UK (most of them) or France, so it only takes 3 companies to pull the plug (BT, France Telecom, Mercury) and the US is limited to satellite only comms to the rest of Europe. |> I am not justifying the high rates charged in many places for phone |> service, I have to bear them myself, but the idea that the FCC can |> dictate to foreign phone companies how much they can charge for access |> to their networks is laughable. The mere thought is enough to bring |> forth the national pride of the bureaucrats running these phone |> companies, to resist any American attempt at interfering in their rate |> structures. Why should a European phone company be concerned with the |> effects on the American trade deficit of competition among U.S. |> carriers? Every call originating in the US instead of Europe is a loss |> of revenue to them, so why should they not try to recover that revenue |> by charging the U.S. carrier who lured away their customer by his |> lower rates? This sort of action cause MAJOR politcal storms in the world outside the US: it's similar to when 3rd world countries unilaterally stoped paying their debts - the US banks sisn't like it one bit! |> Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told |> the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high, |> they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like |> the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies' |> prices. Quite agree, business is business, politics is politics lets TRY and avoid mixing the two! Martin Baines Technical Account Wallah Sun Microsystems Ltd Cambridge UK UK: 0223 420421 JANET: Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun International: +44 223 420421 Other UK: Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk Internet: Martin.Baines@UK.sun.comNNNN ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 17:15:37 gmt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 In article <14135@accuvax.nwu.edu>, iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: > Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told > the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high, > they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like > the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies' > prices. Given that most of the "foreign companies" are really just arms of their respective governments (granted, some are closer-held than others), why is it a surprise that the various US long distance companies are forced to rely on the US government in order to deal effectively with European PTTs? One could just as well ask why (say) American Airlines must seek approval from the French government for its Paris<-->US fares. (Answer: because the French government is trying to protect Air France from competition.) Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #779 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28114; 2 Nov 90 0:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01985; 1 Nov 90 22:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09683; 1 Nov 90 21:25 CST Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:10:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #780 BCC: Message-ID: <9011012110.ab14273@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:10:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 780 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Craig R. Watkins] Info Needed About Email in Japan [Jim Hickstein] Building an Acoustic Coupler [Ted Goldstein] Armenia to Get Alternative International Gateway [Dan Ross] DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Steve Willoughby] Area 908 Now in a Directory [Carl Moore] Suppressing Caller ID in D.C. Area [Carl Moore] HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed [Scott T. Grant] Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? [Mike Olson] ATT ISDN Set Question [Roger Clark Swann] Zone Maps are Desirable (was Criss-Cross) [Laird P. Broadfield] Name and Address Bureau [Tom Ace] John Higdon Said the Same Thing :-} [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed Date: 30 Oct 90 13:11:19 EST Organization: HRB Systems Dave, a friend of mine, has a primary number XYB-5600. The local Sears' published number is XYB-2451. However, Sears recently moved a few doors down in the mall and installed a new Rolm PBX and switched their phone number to XYA-5600 (I suspect the number switch was to move them from the old ESS to a DMS switch). When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been disconnected; calls are being taken by XYA-5600..." The problem is that two or three people per day match the old exchange and the new number and dial XYB-5600 and get Dave. The problems that have been echoed on this list before apply here. It's no problem to answer the phone and tell people what number they really wanted unless you are sleeping/showering/busy/etc. or if the people don't catch on and continue to call you back, or they want to argue with you about what you are telling them. We also really wonder about the people that leave messages for Sears on a machine that starts out "Hi, Dave and Dan aren't available...." This has been going on for months and we are hoping it will let up in February when the new directory comes out. We realize that this isn't Bell's fault and this isn't Sears' fault. We're looking for a cheap creative solution to hold Dave over till February (or later). We've not made any "official" request from anyone at Bell yet -- we know that when you call asking Bell for things, you better already know what you want from them in advance. The usual Bell response is often "We'll be VERY nice and change the number for free." Of course that doesn't work here as Dave will no longer get phone calls from anyone that knows his number. If Bell puts an intercept on XYB-5600 with the new number, we suspect the Sears calls will simply follow him to his new number. The best solution we've come up with so far is to ask Bell (in conjunction with Sears) to change the number given out on the intercept to some other number in their hunt (eg XYA-5601 -- we haven't checked this number). This assumes something like XYB-5601 isn't in use or the problems will simply move to someone else. We are concerned that someone at Bell or Sears will conceive of some problem with this (eg people may "write down" this temporary 5601 number and use it forever and there might be some problem with that). Any other ideas? 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: Jim Hickstein Subject: Email in Japan? Date: 31 Oct 90 12:07:37 GMT Organization: Teradyne, Inc. San Jose CA Knowing the Moderator's feelings about extending electronic mail to the masses, I thought this would be an appropriate place to ask: What is available along these lines to my mother, who is a missionary in Japan? She is in a rural town about 100 miles north of Tokyo, but she uses a computer every single day, and can type even faster than I do. So, I figured the hard part is done. :-) Furthermore, my employer's wide-area network has an appearance (?) in Tokyo; a handful of Suns and VAXen with which I trade email traffic and files routinely. How do you get from a farm in Nishinasuno to Teradyne in Tokyo? Unfortunately, when asked about their local connections, hoping to hear of UUCP hops to major Japanese companies which are our customers, I heard a heart-rending tale of mail to a friend at Sony going back through Boston and LA to arrive, several hours later, 10 miles away on the other side of town. How can I help our Tokyo office to get better connected locally? What kind of standards are prevalent in Japan? (Bell 212A? V.22bis? V.32? PEP, even? (I hope, I hope)) What about local loops away out in the sticks? Are they obtainable? Are they usable? (This is why I want to use PEP.) What about commercial services such as the much-talked-about-in-here-lately ATT-Mail and MCI-Mail? Do they make this easy? Cheap? What's availble for free? What about third-party traffic on Amateur packet radio? I mean, she's out in the country, but this shouldn't be necessary. When I call her on the phone, we obviously are getting a fully digital channel on what I assume is the latest cable (TAT-8?) that lands in Sacramento on my end. It's not like she has a wet party line between her and the toll center that handles *those* calls: they sound better than most of the calls I make to Minnesota! (I love this business.) ------------------------------ From: Ted Goldstein Subject: Building an Acoustic Coupler Date: 31 Oct 90 19:03:38 GMT Organization: Purdue University Hello all, I am trying to build an external acoustic coupler for a direct connect modem so it can be used with a foriegn phone system and I need some phone gurus to tell me if my idea is possible or not. Basically my setup is as follows: _____ _____ | | | |----------\ To phone line | __| |__ |----------/ | | | | ________ ________ | | | | | | | | | |__ __| | | PC | - - -|Modem |---------------| | | | | | | |---- --------| A | | B | -------- -------- | | ----- ----- +9V Two phones taped mic to speaker. The idea is that the tones the modem puts out are converted to acoustic by american phone 'A' and then converted back into phone line signals by foriegn phone 'B'. The end goal is to use an American modem in France. I have tried this setup, and the modem does hear the dial tone, and will attempt dialling, but can't hear the carrier from the answering modem. I am using el'cheapo (tm) phones for my tests, maybe they are distorting the tones(?). Before I try again with better phones, I was wondering if my theory is sound (no pun intended). Should this work? I have also heard such a commercial device exists to accomplish this task. Any leads on this would also be welcome. Any information, thoughts, ideas or product leads would be greatly appreciated! Ted Goldstein E-mail: du4@mace.cc.purdue.edu Network and Systems Admninistrator Phone : (317) 494-9070 Purdue University School of Technology Office: Knoy Hall, Rm G009 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 15:47:25 -0600 From: Dan Ross Subject: Armenia to Get Alternative International Gateway Pinched from _Network_World_, Oct. 29, 1990, "Briefs", p. 2: Armenia to be Gateway to East. ============================== AT&T last week announced plans to ship a 5ESS central office switch and satellite earth station to Soviet Armenia. The equipment will be used by the republic's telephone agency as an international gateway for communications to the U.S., providing an alternative to routing traffic through Moscow, which is currently the only international gateway in the Soviet Union. An AT&T spokesman said Armenia is the only republic that has permission to operate its telephone net independent of the central government. Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ------------------------------ From: Steve Willoughby Subject: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) Date: 31 Oct 90 06:01:01 GMT Reply-To: Steve Willoughby Organization: Steve's Unix System, Portland, Oregon I'm playing around with building a circuit that will, among other things, (try to) recognize DTMF tones played into it. An example application of this would be to make your own voice-mail system (the circuit would look for DTMF keypad keys pressed on the incoming line and signal a CPU to do something, like play or record a message.) The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do this function. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Steve Willoughby N7PFJ steve@aardvark.pdx.com (sun.com!nosun!tessi !aardvark!steve) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:37:56 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area 908 Now in a Directory July 1990 Monmouth area directory in New Jersey is now printed with area code 908 references. There is a map showing the NJ area codes, including 908. The prefix lists still have the "bullet" at the left of those prefixes used in both (current) 201 and 609, but there is no more footnote to go with this; instead there is a note about the list for 908 saying "Designation assigned in 201, 609 or 908 areas" (I think this is ambiguous). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:39:04 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Suppressing Caller ID in D.C. Area {Washington Post} index shows, for page 1 in section C on July 31, 1990 (my paraphrasing): DC-area callers who do not want phone number known via caller ID will have to make calls thru operator at cost of 45 cents. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 11:03:12 EST From: Scott T Grant Subject: HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed Organization: Society of Anti-Heroes I have a friend in Nova Scotia, Canada (Halifax), who is in desperate need of an account to use INTERNET mail (USENET wouldn't hurt, either :-). Is there anyone out there who knows of *any* system, of *any* kind in, or around, Halifax, that has direct INTERNET mail access? It doesn't matter whether it is a public access UNIX system, BITNET, etc. If not, is there perhaps, then, some kind System Administrator out there who could provide her with an account for a few months? *Any* help would be sincerely appreciated, including any alternatives anyone might have. Please respond via E-MAIL, I don't want to waste any bandwith with this. Thanks in advance, Raven Disclaimer: The views expressed above are my own and no one else's. ------------------------------ From: Mike Olson Subject: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 09:22:34 PST I heard an amusing anecdote at lunch the other day from the principal, who'll remain nameless since it doesn't matter very much... A well-known Unix researcher here at UC Berkeley recently switched from AT&T to MCI. He got a telephone call from AT&T telemarketing types soon afterwards. They wanted to know why he had switched. His answer: "You charge too much for Unix." Who knows ... If everyone who switches carriers tells them that, we may drop the price within the reach of individuals. Mike Olson, UC Berkeley, mao@postgres.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 14:11:06 pst From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: ATT ISDN Set Question Here at the Big 'B' most all of the secretarial stations are equipped with an ATT ISDN 7505 set. That's the one with the multifuction display. Behind these sets are 5ESS switches, everything being purchased from and integrated by ATT. One of the functions of the display on the 7505 is a clock/calendar. The recent change from daylight time back to standard time brings the following question: Why isn't the clock display in the station set slaved off the real time clock on the switch (5ESS) such that the stations are updated at least once every 24 hours? These sets are powered from the local 120V outlet through a transformer and when there is a power outage, the local clock/calendar gets trashed, the result being that someone must set the clock manually at each station. I would like to see a *clock sync* data packet sent out over the ISDN interface to each station that would set the local clock at regular intervals. Perhaps someone would comment on this. Roger Swann uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: Zone Maps Are Desirable (was Criss-Cross) Date: 31 Oct 90 18:07:39 GMT In article <14161@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >In article <14148@accuvax.nwu.edu>, george@wciu.edu (George Peavy) writes: > [assorted discussions of criss-cross, Polk, etc. directories deleted] Along the same lines, I've traveled to a couple of cities (I _think_ St. Louis, MO was one) where the telephone book included a one-page reference that translated the centrex number to a city map (i.e. you want to know what part of the city 234-xxxx is in, so you look in the table, and it says "234 ... area 17" so you look at the map, and there's a little squiggly shape with 17 marked in it.) This is something that I have often wanted (yes, we all get a feel for this in our hometowns after long enough, but a definitive reference would be nice.) Is there any particular reason most (assumption) telcos don't publish one of these? Is this one of those things (like so many telco things) that if I just knew the right name for it I could ask my account rep for one and she'd hand it to me? Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell prints lists of all exchanges in the 312/708 area codes, along with prefixes in 815/219/414 within this LATA in their phone directories, with a reference to where it is in the city, or which suburb handles it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 10:10:47 PST From: Tom Ace Subject: Name and Address Bureau Our Moderator writes: >...a cross check >with the Name and Address Bureau showed the owner of 312-228-xxxx as >the 'IBT Co', no address listed, Hickory Hills, IL. Patrick, did you go through telco people, or call their number directly? TAP had published a nationwide list of CNA bureau numbers back around 1981, but those haven't been valid for a long time now. If you have the current number(s), how did you get it (them)? Just curious, of course. :-) Tom Ace {sun,pyramid}!hoptoad!lever!ace ace@lever.com [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell sells their CNA service to the public, with pleasure. Just 35 cents per call gets you two listings. If the number is non-pub, they will say so. If there is no record of the number, that's tough. You pay anyway. The lookups take about ten seconds each. After two, the clerk disconnects you. When the clerk answers 'Name and Address, area and number?' just say the area 312/708 and the seven digit number. Have a pencil and paper handy; they do not like to repeat themselves. They'll give you the name and address. From 312/708: dial only the seven digits, 796-9600. From elsewhere: 312-796-9600. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 20:11:04 -0500 From: David Lesher Subject: John Higdon Said the Same Thing :-} Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers Reply-To: David Lesher {Discussion lifted from rec.arts.movies about goofs in DieHard II} M>They are supposedly in Dulles Intnl Airport - M>Washington DC. The phone has a "Pacific Bell" label on it! J>Well, that was a bit funny, but I thought about it afterwards. J>I don't think Pacific Bell is a real company, but I could be wrong. I'm not so sure, after listening to John's stories.... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #780 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29114; 2 Nov 90 1:12 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28600; 1 Nov 90 23:34 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01985; 1 Nov 90 22:31 CST Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:15:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #781 BCC: Message-ID: <9011012215.ab14007@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:15:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 781 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access [Comm. Fraud Control Association] AT&T Language Line Services [Jeffrey Jonas] NNX Shortage in Maryland [Carl Moore] Bell of PA Automated DA Becomes Friendlier [Scott D. Green] Phone Survey in Penn Station NYC [Michael L. Ardai] More MCI Residential 800 Woes [Joe Konstan] Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Charles Bryant] Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Robert Jackson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 17:37 GMT From: CTC Wang Labs <0004248165@mcimail.com> Subject: Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access [Pat: I think your subscribers might find the following interesting. dab] - - - - - - - Date: Thu Aug 16, 1990 9:26 pm GMT From: Communications Fraud Control Association / MCI ID: 338-0396 Subject: PBX Security Brochure Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access ======================================= As an owner of a private branch exchange (or PBX) you've invested quite a lot of money into a remarkable piece of equipment that greatly enhances your company's communications capabilities. A so-called smart device, this sophisticated switch usually has a number of useful features such as remote access and voice store-and-forward systems, or voice mail. The problem is, criminals are finding it easier than ever to access these helpful features, blocking out legitimate users. This is mainly because many end-users are not taking advantage of new protective technologies that are now available. You may be a victim of this industry-wide problem and not even know it. Last year, a Midwestern manufacturer lost $25,000 when someone accessed its PBX for a short time to make unauthorized long distance calls. One favorite PBX pathway to free long distance calls is the remote access unit, which allows callers to access the switch from a phone outside the company and obtain a dial tone. The abuse is hitting end-users at all levels. Over a two- month period in 1988, employees at a large city agency rigged a phone system in a scam that cost taxpayers over $700,000 for unauthorized phone calls. Workers tampered with the organization's PBX to allow callers from public payphones to dial a special access number that gave them an outside line to anywhere in the world. In another case, intruders left instructions on computer bulletin board systems detailing how to access conference bridges, call diverters and remote access units. Abusers can include current and former employees, summer interns and technicians as well as hackers, street hustlers and other thieves of telecommunications services. And unfortunately, many companies simply forget to take out the easy-to-break authorization test codes that are installed before a PBX is placed in service. Establish Strict Defenses ========================= 1. Assign authorization codes randomly on a need-to-have basis, and limit the number of calls using these codes. Never match codes with company telephone, station or badge numbers. 2. Instruct employees to safeguard their authorization codes, which should be assigned individually, not printed in billing records. And the codes should be changed frequently, and canceled when employees depart. 3. Remote access trunks should be limited to domestic calling and shut down when not in use. 4. Use the time-of-day PBX option. 5. Use a system-wide barrier code, followed by an authorization code with the most digits your PBX can handle. 6. Use a nonpublished number for remote access lines. 7. Use a delayed electronic call response (the same as letting your phone ring four or five times before answering). 8. Try hacking your own system to find weaknesses, then correct them. Implementing Effective Controls =============================== 1. Know the safeguards on your PBX. 2. Develop an action plan that provides adequate staffing to direct specific defensive procedures. 3. Monitor billing, call details and traffic for unusual patterns and busy lines during off-peak hours, such as late at night. 4. Inform PBX console attendants, night security officers and remote access users of the need to secure equipment and what to do if they suspect an intrusion. 5. Ask your PBX vendor/supplier what inherent defenses could be used to make your PBX more difficult to penetrate. 6. Monitor valid and invalid call attempts as often as possible. 7. Look for attempted calls of short duration that usually indicate hacking activity. 8. Know who is on the other end of the line before giving out any information. 9. Learn whom to contact at your local and long distance service providers when you have a security problem. Glossary ======== Access number: Preliminary digits that must be dialed to connect to an outgoing line. Authorization code: Unique multidigit code identifying an authorized subscriber that must be validated for a call to be processed. Barrier code: A number of digits that, when dialed before an authorization code, allow dial entry to a PBX. Bulletin board system: Computer-based message system. Call detail recording: A PBX feature that logs outgoing and incoming calls. Conference bridge: Allows several parties to carry on a conversation (Conference Call) from remote sites. End-user: Subscriber that uses, rather than provides, telecommunications services. PBX, or private branch exchange A private switch, either automatic or manually operated, serving extensions in a business complex and providing access to the public switched network. Remote access: A feature that allows an employee to access a PBX from a remote site and charge calls to the caller's company. Smart device: A computer-based system that carries out complex functions. Switch: A mechanical or solid state device that opens or closes circuits, changes operating parameters, or selects paths or circuits, either on a space or time division basis. Time-of-day option: An added restriction to the automatic route selection or least-cost options, it can be preset to block long distance calls at certain hours. Trunk: A communications channel between different switching systems or between a PBX and a central office. Voice mail: or voice store-and-forward systems: A voice message system that allows messages to be played back when the addressee returns. Since 1985, CFCA has served as the industry's clearinghouse for information pertaining to the fraudulent use of telecommunications services. To learn more about PBX system security, call (703)848-9768, or write: The Communications Fraud Control Association 7921 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 eMail address: < cfca@mcimail.com > A short footnote: If you even >think< you have a problem with PBX Fraud, contact: 1. Your PBX Switching System Vendor 2. Your 'Local Exchange Carrier' ( Your local telephone company) and 3. Your 'Inter-Exchange Carrier' ( Your long-distance telephone company) If finding the >right person< gets to be a problem, contact the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) at the above address or telephone them at (703) 848-9768. dab ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 04:32:36 -0500 From: synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: AT&T Language Line Services More news from the AT&T newsline +1 800 2ATT NOW The AT&T Language Line Services is now available to consumers (it used to be for police, hospital and emergency use only). They will translate on line to "virtually any language and dialect", and even translate printed material. On line costs .50 per minute (10 per hour!), billed to any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, American Express). in the USA: +1 800 628 8486 information: +1 800 752 6096 outside of the USA: either call USA direct and ask for AT&T Language Line Service orr call +1 408 648-5871 I'm posting this because there may be some occasion a telecom reader may want to contact somebody in a language they don't speak. If you don't know to ask for this service, you won't know what to do! The same for my previous postings about the TDD relay service. There's no reason NOT to contact someone because they're deaf or don't speak the same language. (what about a deaf person who understands only a foreign language - will the relay service and translation cooperate? Is the translation service equipped and trained to use TDD/e-mail/telex?) I dunno - I'm just acting as a messenger! I don't work for AT&T. I just observe the industry and try to understand the technology. It's nice to see that AT&T is providing services that really let you "reach out and touch someone" regardless of location, language, hearing or speaking ability. Perhaps they're understanding that there's more to a phone call than just providing an audio path. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Maybe this is also the reason some of us insist on staying with AT&T as our long distance carrier: If you want quality and extra service, you pay a little more. It is worth every nickle! And of course as time goes on, we are finding out AT&T really isn't that much more, considering the services they offer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 11:20:35 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: NNX Shortage in Maryland I went to the library at Elkton, Maryland, and looked through call guides for other parts of Maryland. When I was done, I listed only 17 unused NNX prefixes in Maryland (area 301 for entire state), and these include 950 (carrier access) and 958 (phone-co. usage?). As a result, I saw N0X/N1X prefixes appearing in Maryland further away from DC than I have ever seen before: 606 in Frederick, 416 in Myersville (near Frederick), and 208 in Berlin on the lower eastern shore. These have no local service outside of Maryland. But I see that the next exchange north of Berlin, which is at the junction of U.S. 113 and U.S. 50, is 301-352 Bishopville, which is local to Selbyville, Delaware. There would be a problem (right?) in putting N0X/N1X prefix in an exchange which is just a 7-digit local call away from an out-of-area exchange (exception in Maryland for the DC area suburbs, which now require NPA+7D for out-of-area local call anyway). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:34 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Bell of PA Automated DA Becomes Friendlier Bell of PA, which recently started allowing callers to be connected automatically to the number requested from DA (for an additional $.30) has announced a change in the service. Now, DA will *first* recite the number you requested, and then give you the option to be connected automatically. Seems as though folks got a little cranky having to sit through the pitch first before getting the number. ------------------------------ From: teda!ardai@sun.com Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:43:52 PST Subject: Phone Survey in Penn Station NYC Last Sunday evening, I arrived early at Penn Station in New York so I decided to do a little phone survey. There are 17 COCOTs in various shops, all run by 'Tel_a_booth Communications LTD' in Long Island City. These phones channel all other carrier access attempts to 'ITI', where an ACD that gives the option of either placing a collect call or connecting to an operator. Both of these options outpulsed a call, rang once and then returned a dialtone. The repair number terminated in an answering machine. 700-555-4141 resulted in 'restricted number.' In the Amtrack terminal area, there are 38 New York Telephone phones, and about 30 more had been removed since the last time I was there. These phones also blocked calls to other carriers, giving a message that 'it is not necessary to dial a company access code for this call' :-) Logically, 700-555-4141 reported ATT as the long-distance carrier. I called the local operator and asked about the problems connecting to a Sprint operator, and