Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00679; 1 Jan 91 7:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32392; 1 Jan 91 5:44 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05098; 1 Jan 91 4:39 CST Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 3:46:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1 BCC: Message-ID: <9101010346.ab19471@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jan 91 03:46:40 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper] Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [Douglas Scott Reuben] Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Dag Spicer] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Tad Cook] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Toby Nixon] Re: Another Year Finished [Richard Budd] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 23:49:03 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 (Note: I am sending this on behalf of Bruce Wilson.) From the FACTS BBS in Flint, Michigan, by way of the Vehicle City BBS in Davison, Michigan: On January 15, 1991, an administrative hearing will be held before the Michigan Public Service Commision to discuss a complaint filed against Michigan Bell Telephone Company. Early this year, a private bulletin board in Grosse Point, called the Variety and Spice BBS, was ordered to pay an increased charge for phone service because it was discovered he was accepting donations for use of his BBS. This BBS ran on an IBM, and supports sixteen separate lines. Although a portion of the BBS was open to the public, most of the BBS (including an "adult file" area, were restricted to those who sent a donation to the BBS. The money collected didn't even come close to the actual cost of running such a BBS. Michigan Bell claims that placing any condition on the use of a BBS constitutes a business, and that the sysop must pay a business rate for his phone line, plus pay a $100 deposit for EACH LINE in use. This means the Variety and Spice sysop would have to pay a $1600 deposit, plus about $50 additional each month if he wanted to continue his BBS. The sysop refused to pay this fee, so Michigan Bell disconnect his lines. The sysop filed a complaint with the MPSC. Until this case was heard, he decided to re-install the phone lines (at a considerable cost to himself). If Michigan Bell wins this case, they will require every BBS sysop to pay business rates for each of their lines, if it is determined that the BBS is accepting fees or donations. The Variety and Spice sysop claims that MBT considers requiring users to upload files or post messages (ie upload/download ratios) the same as a donation, and will require the sysop to upgrade his line to a business line whether money was exchanged or not. However, in an interview I did in March, I talked to the chief spokesman of MBT, who claimed that this was not the case. Only if money is accepted will MBT demand the sysop pay business rate. The important thing here is that AT THIS TIME, these are the rules that MBT believes is in the tariff. If Variety and Spice loses this case, it is conceivable that MBT can request further restrictions to be placed. At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's, and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country to follow. Your help is urgently needed!! Please try to attend this hearing. It will be held at the Public Service Building, 6545 Merchant Way, Lansing, Michigan. The date is January 15. I do not have the exact time but I assume this hearing will last most of the day. You do not have to testify, but it would really be helpful if you can attend as a show of support. The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can pack the room with sysops and users! For more information, please contact Jerry Cross at 313-736-4544 (voice) or 313-736-3920 (bbs). You can also contact the sysop of the Variety & Spice BBS at 313-885-8377. Please! We need your support. -------------- Notes from Ed Hopper: In our case against Southwestern Bell, the same cockeyed logic was applied. For a brief period, Southwestern Bell also maintained that the requirement of file uploads was, in and of itself, cause for them to declare a BBS to be a business because it required something "of value" for access. We were able to force Southwestern Bell to see things in a more moderate tone. Recently, I had the opportunity to testify before the Texas PUC regarding the Texas BBS case. In that testimony, I stated that the telcos draw all sorts of extreme scenarios in which the provision of residential service to BBS systems is against the public good. Their argument goes: "If we allow them to have residential service, it will upset the equations and raise the cost of telecommunications services to everyone." However, there is not a BBS on every block, or even one in every subdivision, and no rational observer would ever expect that to be the case. There is, however, cause for most rational observers to believe that the increased cost of business service, including it's increased burden in the area of deposits and installation charges, could cause the closing of many BBS outlets. This, truly, would not be in the public good. Ed Hopper President The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: The problem of course is that the telephone company only has two basic rates: a rate for residence/personal communications and a rate for all else, which they term 'business phones'. Where Ed's counter-argument fails is that while there are not BBS's on every block, neither are there churches and charities on every block -- yet they pay full business rates, as do social service hotline, information and referral services. Are BBS information providers to be treated differently than dial-a-prayer lines which run on business phones, or the proverbial "Battered Women's Shelter outgoing phone line where the calls can't be traced" which also pays business rates? Here are some questions you may wish to give response to: Should there be a third rate category made available, covering charitable and religious organizations? Should this third rate category be available to all not-for-profit phone services such as BBS lines and social service referral numbers or hotlines? If BBS operators who charge money got such a rate, should Compuserve or GEnie also be allowed to use the same rate? Should telco be the one to audit the revenues and decide which computer sites should be treated as 'business' and which should be 'charitable organization'? Is it the fault of telco if the BBS operator does not charge enough money to make a profit? Where is the line to be drawn? Answers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 30-DEC-1990 23:03:56.80 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could find out if the problem was not specific to me. After receiving a lot of letters about such delays, especially at night during the "automatic deactivation" period, I wrote to GTE/FMR in Tampa to complain about the deficiencies in their service. The following is the response I received from them, on Dec 24,1990: Dear Mr. Reuben: Thank you for your interest in GTE's Follow Me Roaming Service and for taking the time to write to us about problems you have had with activations during the early morning hours. This letter is to explain the system's operation, and to let you know what GTE Telecommunication Services is doing to improve our service. The FMR service we provide to cellular carriers is a very complex, state-of- the-art system. It is comprised of a connection to each carrier's cellular switch, a control host computer, and a nationwide data network interconnecting the elements. The overall response of the system depends on the response of the cellular carriers' switches, which is impacted by volume and time of day. Therefore, longer activations can occur. The system's current design is for deactivations to occur at midnight, local time, for the system in which roaming is to take place. This enables FMR to complete a large number of deactivations during the local switch's least active time; unfortunately, this can create the situation described in your letter. Since assuming full responsibility for FMR operations and product engineering in August, 1990, we have significantly improved overall response time by taking the following actions: o The FMR system was moved from shared computer resources and placed on its own computer. This increased the capacity and allowed us greatly reduce activation times in some heavy markets. The FMR application was later migrated to a larger, more powerful computer. This move is expected to decrease activation times and provide the capacity for future growth. o Enhancements have been installed to improve priority of post- midnight activations and to allow simultaneous two-way communications between the FMR central processor and the processors at the switch sites. These enhancements are expected further reduce activation times in heavy markets. We are continuously developing additional enhancements to further improve FMR. We are proud of the advances we have made with our Follow Me Roaming service, and look forward to continued improvements in the future. This service is currently available in more than 200 U.S. metropolitan areas, and 46 Canadian cities, making it as convenient as possible for you to use you mobile telephone anywhere. All of us here at GTE Telecommunication Services are deeply committed to providing strong, reliable, and timely services to cellular carriers. We regret any difficulties you may have experienced, but please be assured we shall continue working to constantly improve FMR. Once again, thank you for your interest. We look forward to serving your needs in the future. Sincerely, Devora DeMarco Customer Services Manager GTE Telecommunication Services, Inc. P.O. Box 2924 Tampa, FL 33601-2924 --------------- A few things I noted: *The FMR deactivation is local to the switch you are ROAMING in, rather than at 12AM Eastern time (or Central time while GTE was in Houston), as had been my experience over the summer in California and Nevada. It is also not dependent upon your "home" switch's deactivation cycle. Thus, a customer from NYNEX in Mass, for example, who is roaming in GTE's San Francisco system, will not be deactivated any sooner than a Pac*Tel customer from Nevada roaming in the same GTE/SF system. *What is so special about two-way signalling between the host system at GTE/FMR in Tampa and the processors at the switch sites? Prior to August could communication only take place one way? IE, would all deactivations from a system be sent to GTE/FMR, and in the meantime while this was taking place no activations could take place since the FMR system could not communicate with the switch sites? I'm not sure I understand exactly how simultaneous two-way communications really helps out all that much. Overall, though, a rather thorough response. I was particularly impressed with speed of the response, as I had mailed my letter to them only two weeks before I received theirs. (Not to be petty, but compare this to Metro Mobile/Connecticut, my "A" carrier, whom I wrote to 2 MONTHS ago and have not received anything from as of yet! Which company appears to be more concerned with the satisfaction of their customers...? Hmmm... That's a hard one! :) ) I'd like to also thank everyone who responded to my initial posting. Your letters did indeed help me out a lot! One final thing: Although this doesn't have anything to do directly with FMR, California and Nevada "B" customers can get all of the Custom Calling features anywhere in CA or Nevada now. I heard on GTE's customer service recording (the one they play while you wait twenty minutes to talk to someone! :) ) that the new *28/*29 system will allow you to use your feature packages anyhwere. I wonder how they work out rates for Call- Forwarding and similar features...From your home site? Or from your local/ Roaming site? In any event, this system will hopefully lessen the amount of CA-based activations and activation times for those roaming outside of California and Nevada. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Subject: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry From: Dag Spicer Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 10:58:55 PST Organization: Questor: FREE Worldwide News & Mail Access => +1 604 681.0670 I suspect this has already been addressed, but could someone direct me to previous discussions on this subject? Have there been any studies dealing with this surcharge (or lack thereof) in the US and around the world? Any help on this issue would be much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 8:30:08 PST In article <15710@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mk@wroach.cactus.org (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering. > Cost? Experiences? There is one in the current Hello Direct catalog. Their number is 1-800-HI-HELLO. I have used the AutoLine Plus made by ITS Communications. They are at 1-800-525-4596. It works fine. Be sure to get the AutoLine Plus, as the AutoLine is just a plain exclusion module. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Date: 30 Dec 90 23:13:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15710@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mk@wroach.cactus.org (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering. > Cost? Experiences? > What I am NOT asking about are the boxes that answer the call and then > make FAX/voice/computer decisions based on what they hear. The December 11th PC magazine, in a review of various voice/fax/data switches, mentioned a fax/voice/data switch that is based on distinctive ringing (known as RingMaster in BellSouth land). The manufacturer is Lynx Automation, Inc., 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036; +1 206 744 1582. The "RingDirector/2", for $89, supports two-number distinctive ringing, and the "RingDirector/4", for $149, supports four-number distinctive ringing. I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but it might take a few weeks for me to get it. If you get one, would you please let me know what you think of it? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 16:10 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Another Year Finished Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY TELECOM Moderator (Pat Townson) writes in Telecom Digest #908 >Another year is finished ... and the decade of the eighties is ending. My solution to the dilemma of when decades and centuries is semantical. The 1980's obviously refer to the years 1980-1989 as the 1990's will be the years 1990-1999. However, as Pat and others point out, the Year of Our Lord began with the Year One, not the Year Zero; ergo the 21st Century begins on January 1, 2001 (Arthur B. Clarke had it right when he wrote 2001). The 199th Decade ends tonight, December 31, 1990 and the 200th Decade begins tomorrow, January 1, 1991. Wishing everyone a Happy New Year and Decade, Richard Budd klub@maristb.bitnet Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18713; 2 Jan 91 0:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21733; 1 Jan 91 22:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25399; 1 Jan 91 21:49 CST Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #2 BCC: Message-ID: <9101012102.ab03780@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: C/NA for 716 [David Leibold] Re: C/NA for 716 [Manwai Yip] Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy [Gabe Wiener] Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD [Scott Coleman] Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst [Robert Halloran] Re: Full Service Long Distance [Ken Abrams] Re: COCOT in GTE Land [David Tamkin] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Jack Winslade] MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors [Bill Huttig] The Purpose of BBN C-30's [Joel B. Levin] What Are Secure Lines? [Joe Broniszewski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: Re: C/NA Number for 716 Area Code? Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 06:08:52 GMT In article <15709@accuvax.nwu.edu> wlw2286@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Lance Ware) writes: >[Moderator's Note: I do not know of any telco specifically offering >CNA to the public except Illinois Bell (312-796-9600). Am I mistaken >on this? PAT] I have just found out that there is a public CNA number in Florida NPA 813. For one or two requests, the number is (813) 270.8711. For three to fifteen requests, the number is (813) 270.8211. I didn't catch what costs were involved, or whether or not this could be accessed outside of 813 (St Petersburg/Tampa). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 02:34:38 -1000 From: Manwai Yip Subject: Re: C/NA for 716 >[Moderator's Note: I do not know of any telco specifically offering CNA to >the public except Illinois Bell. Am I mistaken on this? PAT] Yes, you are. But nobody's perfect. :) In Hawaii, GTE Hawaiian Tel offers "Telephone Cross Checking" service by dialing 976-1212. The same as CNA. Each call costs 75 cents and you get two inquiries per call, whether successful or unsuccessful. Just like directory assistance. South Central Bell provides public CNA for area code 502 (West Kentucky ). You can call directory assistance at 1-502-555-1212 and they can help you with CNA inquiries in addition to regular directory assistance inquiries. I can't remember any others, but I've called 555-1212 operators in other area codes besides 502 that could handle CNA inquiries. The person asking for a CNA list was probably referring to the infamous CNA list that has spread throughout the hacker community. It contained a list of all the internal Bell C/NA numbers, numbers not available for use by the public of course... [Moderator's Note: If someone wants to compile a complete list of these numbers available for *public use* -- no internal telco numbers please! -- we'll make an exhibit of it in the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 19:15:56 GMT In article <15707@accuvax.nwu.edu> lazlo%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: > 45.5 baud -- "communications with the deaf network"; this last > required a "simple, no-charge hardware modification" from > the factory, probably a trace cut on the board. The later models didn't even need a hardware mod to run TDD. You just popped it out of the box, shoved it into slot 2, and ran the "Deaf Term" software that Novation included on the utilities disk. THe Apple-Cat II had only one real problem, and that is it had so much stuff packed onto one board that it used to overheat a lot. Many people (including myself) used to run their machines with the cover off in order to protect the modem from blowing. The modem in its fullest configuration had TWO cards, the second being for 212 mode. You could install the second card in a slot, or you could run it in Slot Saver position. Since the only thing the 212 card needed from the slot was electrical power, and since the slots on the II were a high commodity, novation developed a nifty little trick that let you mount the card on the flat surface of the power supply (with special clips and an adhesive board, and then get the power through a special Y-connector that'd intercept the power before it got to the motherboard. I'm only sorry no one makes something as good as the Apple Cat II in a standalone serial configuration. It really was a gem of a modem in every way. It had touchtone dialing (in those days, a very unique feature), touchtone decoding (with one $30 chip added), an X-10 controller, a voice handset that was fully programmable, and best of all, a D/A converter chip on board that could work wonders. I had software for mine that could synthesize eight-voice music, male and female voices with great text-to-speech, and of course, all the TSPS tones, 2600 Hz, payphone coin tones, etc. The phreaks loved it. I miss it, though, because of its great answering machine capabilities. Heck, people were writing automated telephone info services on those things back in 1983!. Oh well. I wish I still had mine, but since I don't have an Apple II anymore, it wouldn't do me much good! Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 2 Jan 1991 01:10:48 GMT In article <15706@accuvax.nwu.edu> rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: >The Apple-Cat was a neat modem, you could run a crude voice-mail >system on it and build an answering machine surpassing anything >available commercially at the time. I heard rumors (on Telecom, in >fact) that the manufacturer was sued by AT&T because of the fraud >potential. (And perhaps because they heard that John Draper, aka >Captain Crunch, designed it) The modem had an on-board D/A converter >for touch-tone generation and voice synthesis, and some folks wrote >programs to generate 2600hz and other signalling frequencies, TSPS >being the most infamous. It even had menu items for 'Quarter', >'Dime', and 'Nickel'. I'm confused about something here: In Steven Levy's excellent book "Hackers," on p. 271, there is mention of the modem (essentially a complete blue-box-on-a-card) that Draper designed for Apple (note that the Apple Cat II was a Novation product). It appears that Apple never actually marketed the board. Chris Espinosa is quoted in the book as saying "When Mike Scott [of Apple] discovered what [Draper's board] could do, he axed the project instantly. It was much too dangerous to put out in the world for anyone to have." Did Draper also design the Apple Cat II (after Apple axed his earlier project)? BTW, I saw a message from the Captain on the net (perhaps even c.d.t) several months back - perhaps we can get the answer to this question direct from the source ;-) Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: Mr. Draper has written notes to the Digest in the past. Perhaps he will see this and respond either to you or the entire readership. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst Date: 31 Dec 90 01:40:06 GMT Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <15704@accuvax.nwu.edu> fec@whutt.att.com (F E Carey) writes: >I spotted the Cheshire Cat at one of the Computer Security Institute >Conferences in Chicago in the mid-eighties - either '84 or '85. He'd >gotten in with a press pass (whose - unknown), was fairly well groomed >(haircut), and seemed to be keeping a low profile. My recollection was that Cheshire applies for press credentials to these sorts of things using the name of the press bureau from the old Darrin McGavin KOLCHAK:THE NIGHT STALKER series (Independent World News?); the PR types weren't in the habit of checking up on this. Last I'd heard, he'd gotten out of bit-pushing and was doing something fairly mundane somewhere in Florida. He's been keeping a VERY low profile the last few years. Bob Halloran Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Full Service Long Distance Date: 31 Dec 90 16:05:00 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois >The complicated part in having other IECs handle coin-paid calls is, I >think, as much an accounting problem as it is one of technology. If >[Moderator's Note: Why do you feel the accounting would be any more of >a problem than it is now? At present, the collecting agent (here, it >is of course IBT) still has to detirmine which coins were deposited >for local calls and which coins were deposited for long distance You are probably correct about the method used to divvy up the money. I don't really know because I have never been involved in that part of the business. It COULD become much more complicated, however, if there were, for instance, twenty players in the game instead of just one. I can't help but think of the "slamming" story. What do you do if the total "bill" from all the carriers adds up to more than what you collected from the money box? I sure wouldn't want to be the one who had to try to figure out why that happened! Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: COCOT in GTE Land Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 19:00:56 CST Stan Krieger wrote in volume 10 (yeah, back then), issue 908: | While trying to place a call from a COCOT in Fort Myers, FL last week, | after getting an "invalid number" synthesized message as I started | pushing 10288, I pushed "0". It took about 8 rings for the GTE | operator to answer. | So I wonder what exactly the interface between the COCOT and phone | company is. For example, in Bell Operating Company areas, the | operators know that the line is a COCOT. What amazes me is that you got a telco operator by dialing 0 at a COCOT. It amazes me that you could reach a telco operator by dialing *anything* from a COCOT. Stan seems not only to have reached a GTE operator from the COCOT in GTE's satrapy but also to have reached local BOC operators from COCOTs in Bell jurisdictions. 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@igloo.scum.com [Moderator's Note: The COCOTS in this area (I'm east of David T. by about five miles) get the IBT operator from dialing zero. But there is a class of service or treatment on the line which tells the operator you are at a private pay phone and you need to make arrangements for billing other than 'bill to this number', which the operator will refuse to do. IBT is very sophisticated about this sort of thing. They have numerous classes of service restricting incoming/outgoing calls; the type of billing permitted on the line, etc. COCOTS pose no hassle for them in this respect. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jan 91 14:51:57 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <30 Dec 90 23:13:24>, Toby Nixon (200:30102/2) writes: >I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but >it might take a few weeks for me to get it. If you get one, would you >please let me know what you think of it? I have used the RingDirector four-line box for about three months and it works quite well. The Hello Direct catalog only shows the two-line box, but I got the four-line box by phoning Lynx Automation directly. Unlike the two-line box, the four-line model is powered by a plug-in adaptor and it also has an 'exclusion' switch which works quite well in preventing an accidentally pucked up voice phone on one line from fouling-up a data or fax transmission on another. There seems to be no delay in switching response, and no false ring on the other lines. In other words, the detection of ringing codes is quick and solid. Hope this gives you a better idea of what you will have when the box comes in. Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors Date: 31 Dec 90 03:21:26 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Boy, I must have all the bad luck with phone companies. The latest is with my NEW 800/Prime Time account. I received my first bill sometime last week while away for the holidays (I still haven't received the info/welcome pack.) It is a disaster. I called today to get it taken care of and the computers were down (9am ET) so I called back at 12:30 and they were still down. I called about 8PM and talked with the supervisor. She said that she has to request the bill since she only shows four calls. There were 124 calls (20 days) totalling over $59! None of the calls were rated at the prime time rate (6.50/hr). I calculated a $10.99 difference (that's prorating the monthly fees) without tax. Subtract all the one minute busy/no answer calls and the credit due me is much higher. I asked what the current unbilled calls added up to (I got the info before) but she said she did not have the info. I called the SC office and found out that it was $5.17 based on sixteen calls covering 12/8-12/26 ... the bill ended the 18th so the calls on the 8th (from Walt Disney World to my answering machine) should have showed up. To make a long story short, I called the supervisor in IA back and told here that the SC folk gave me the info ... she said that it was illegal to provide details on unbilled calls ... that it is a federal law. I was wondering if this is true ... she is going to call Wednesday to discuss the billing errors. Bill wah@zach.fit.edu ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: The Purpose of BBN C-30's Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 09:11:54 EST rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) wrote in TELECOM Digest Volume 10 Issue 895: >On a completely unrelated subject -- in the mux room of our local CO >there are three BBN C-30s sitting in one corner. Any idea what they >might be doing? Did BBN have a clearance sale when the Arpanet went >out of business? Are my phone calls being routed by IMPs? No. It is well known that BBN packet switches are used for the Defense Data Network, which includes Milnet and what used to be Arpanet among other things. But BBN has also for a long time sold wide area networks to other government and commercial entities around the world. Michigan Bell's public X.25 packet switched network offering is built on BBN's C/30 and C/300 switches. JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880 1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 18:02:35 -0500 From: Joe Broniszewski Subject: What are Secure Lines? I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stol. The book detailed a true story about computer espionage. In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure lines. My questions: 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line and a non-secure line? 2. Are calls routed differently? 3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? 4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? Joe Broniszewski Philadelphia Phillies Systems Department ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #2 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22044; 2 Jan 91 3:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11158; 2 Jan 91 1:57 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19182; 2 Jan 91 0:54 CST Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:02:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #3 BCC: Message-ID: <9101020002.ab28640@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Jan 91 00:02:01 CST Volume 11 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link [TELECOM Moderator] Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Brent Chapman] Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55 [L. Ware] Is This a New Record for Number Reassignment? [Michael P. Deignan] Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 23:02:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link Over the New Year's holiday, AT&T announced that AT&T Mail is being merged with Easy Link, the older email / message service offering from Western Union, which was recently bought by AT&T. I'll provide more details here as I get them, but it appears the two services may be operated as one in the near future. I think that will be great when they get the merger complete, because Easy Link has always offered many good services not presently available from AT&T Mail, such as interactive, real time conversation with telex / twx machines, and the FYI News Service. All of the Western Union sales staff is now being relocated into AT&T quarters, and the new phone number for inquiries is 1-800-321-MSGS. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Brent Chapman Subject: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 1 Jan 91 23:00:18 GMT Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service coverage. My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent service almost the whole time I was in California. The only place in California where service got spotty was in the desert East and West of Barstow, along California Highway 58 (between Bakersfield/Mojave coverage and Barstow coverage) and Interstate 40 (between Barstow coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No Service" only 25% of the time. I don't have a signal strength display on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas, and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the Bay Area. What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the nearest cell? On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase the total capacity of the system. Is this true? Thanks! Brent Chapman Ascent Logic Corporation Computer Operations Manager 180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200 chapman@alc.com San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: 408/943-0630 ------------------------------ From: Lance Ware Subject: Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55 Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 20:54:11 GMT Does anyone have the programming info for the new Mitsubishi 3000 handheld? I just got one, and will be travelling to CA later this year where I will want to reprogram it for Cellular One, for a month or so. In addition, I am looking for programming info on the Audiovox BC-55 Car Phone, as well as a place to buy a new handset. If anyone has any info please reply to me. Any information will be appreciated. Lance Ware Mac and IBM Reseller wlw2286@ultb.isc.rit.edu wlw2286@ultb.UUCP ------------------------------ Subject: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 11:05:20 EST From: "Michael P. Deignan" Paul.Schleck@iugate.unomaha.edu (Paul Schleck) writes: >That brings up an interesting point. Just how long does the phone >company wait before reassigning numbers? According to my mother, >calls for the previous subscriber *never* happened in the past (my >mother is 58). In recent years, when she moves and/or switches phone >numbers, she complains about receiving a significant number of calls >for the previous owner of the number. "Stupid phone company doesn't >give its numbers a chance to cool off anymore!" she complains. Is >this just my mother's imagination or has Ma Bell, in her hunger for >numbers to assign in populated areas, shortened the "cooling off" time >to less than ideal? A few years ago, I called NET to get a second line installed in my parent's home as a modem line. After going thru the process, and being informed that the line would be activated in a week, I called the number they assigned me. Lo and behold, a human voice answered. We had a nice little chat. Apparently, he was moving and was scheduled to have the phone disconnected on Friday. I, in turn, was scheduled to have the phone connected the following Wednesday. I guess it really depends on the particular exchange. This was in the city, where no doubt numbers are at a premium. In the middle of Nebraska, you probably wouldn't have to worry too much. 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: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 00:00:00 CST [Moderator's Note: This article first appeared in TELECOM Digest on Thursday, June 22, 1989. (Volume 9, Issue 208). I thought newer readers would enjoy seeing it and older readers might enjoy a repeat as we end one year and start another. Since this was written, most of the problems have been corrected. PAT] Indiana Bell service in the northeast section of Hammond, IN has gone to hell, but the telco says its not their fault, and they are trying to work with the people involved to correct the problem. For instance, consider the case of Steve Gescheidler, a resident of north Hammond, living just a few blocks from the Illinois/Indiana state line: he shares a party line with Jesus. When he picks up his telephone, a voice will often be on the wire reading from Ephesians, or bellowing at him to repent before he Burns In Hell forever. Sometimes the voice is trying to sell him spiritually enlightening audio tapes -- Visa and MasterCard accepted, of course. His neighbor around the corner, Judy Maruszczak, has a heavenly instrument also: When she tries to make a phone call, it will often times be drowned out by hand-clapping gospel music. Her VCR also likes to preach to her. The Hammond legal firm of Efron and Efron owns a pious dictaphone machine. When the secretary is in the midst of transcribing legalese, threats of fire and brimstone suddenly are heard on the tape. In addition, their phone system is electronic, and when they put calls on hold, as often as not a few seconds later the hold is broken and the call is lost. Several times per day the phone will ring, and no one is on the line at all. Linda Reynolds, another resident in the area said her television, her VCR and her cordless phone all began urging her down the righteous path last fall. She said sometimes at night the cordless phone begins ringing by itself, and going off hook for no reason, tying up their wire-line. Nine year old Tommy Kotul learned how to find salvation while he was trying to play 'Sports Baseball', an Atari game cartridge. He also said that one day in school, a choir started singing hymns over the school's public address system, which is in the form of speakerphones connected to the intercom phone on each teacher's desk. Although the sanctified interference shows up in the damndedest ways, on all sorts of electronic gizmos, it invariably is on the phone lines of the good (and presumably by now, God-fearing) residents of North Hammond, an Indiana community which straddles the Illinois state line with the communities of Burnham and Calumet City, Illinois to the south and west, and Chicago at it's northwest tip on the state line. So people began asking Indiana Bell, "what the heck is this, anyway?"... WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. ... that's what it is ... this religious station, operating at 92.3 on the dial, licensed in Hammond, IN, with transmitter facilities in Burnham, IL is the culprit. Operating with an antenna height of 500 feet, and 50,000 watts of radiated power, the folks at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. are literally *saturating* a two mile area around the northern end of the Indiana/Illinois state line, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Gescheidler lives about four blocks from WYCA's transmitter. He first began noticing the sanctified interference last fall, and it became louder and louder as the months went on, always on his end. "It seems like when I am in the middle of an important conversation, some preacher always comes on and tells me I'm going to Hell," he said, adding that the phone lines had already gone to hell, and no one seemed to give a damn about it. After complaining several times to Indiana Bell, Gescheidler and his neighbors complained to the Federal Communications Commission, the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission, and finally to the radio station itself. No one, he realized, least of all the radio station, was willing to take any responsibility for the problem. WYCA isn't breaking any broadcasting rules according to Paul Gomell, an FCC Chicago office technician whose duties include periodic examination of WYCA's equipment. "The home equipment is probably not adequately filtered," he said. "The problem has nothing to do with Indiana Bell's equipment," said Delores Steur-Wagner, Indiana Bell's community affairs manager for Hammond. "If there are complaints, they should go to the FCC." Chris Alexander, Dallas-based Vice President-Engineering for WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters' parent corporation said, "The signal is so strong, you expect this kind of interference in devices that are not well-shielded. We try to advise people as best we can, and we have worked closely with Indiana Bell and Illinois Bell to resolve complaints." In November, 1986, the station raised its antenna to 500 feet from 400 feet, and increased its power from 30,000 to 50,000 watts, Alexander said. "We made these changes only after receiving permission to do so from the Federal Communications Commission." Alexander said that this change in power and antenna height created a so-called 'blanketing area' -- an area of about 1.7 miles in any direction of the transmitter and antenna -- where the signal is so strong and so permeating, it is literally everywhere, in everything. "Indeed this is the case," said one neighbor five blocks from the site. "I have gone for early morning walks in the open field where the antenna is constructed. In the crisp, early morning air, you can almost feel the signal; smell that ozone; sense the corona." Alexander said, "We operate completely within the law. We observe all FCC regulations at all times." He noted that one condition for the change in antenna height and power output being granted by the Commission was that WYCA was ordered to assume responsibility for correcting certain types of radio interference in an area 1.7 miles in any direction of the station for a period of *one year* afterward. Alexander said during that time they worked closely with the telcos involved and "....anyone who complained about interference was given free of charge the filtering devices they needed ... some of our people helped install them ... just what the FCC said we had to do, we did it, in the geographic area required, for the length of time required...." Alexander noted one of the first complaints about the increased power came when prosecutors in a federal drug trial in Hammond tried to play wiretap evidence for the jury: instead, the tape recorder offered up hymns and homilies. Paul Gomell of the FCC noted that they have received complaints about the station relating to answering machines, speed-dialing equipment, cordless phones, cheapie phones, hold buttons, Touch-Tone service, and VCR's. These appurtenances and others -- like the preaching Atari game -- lend to the appearance that God is everywhere, at least in Hammond. One Indiana Bell service representative spoke, on the condition that she could remain nameless, saying that the telco had handled over 130 WYCA-related problems in the past year, but Bell spokeswoman Steur-Wagner said the company does not keep track of such things and she had no way of confirming this report. The next step to reduce the interference -- with no guarentees that it will completely end -- is to have all the interior phone wire shielded in steel casings, said Tim Timmons, Indiana Bell's regional maintainence manager for northern Indiana, "...plus of course have good filtering where the phone lines come into the building..." "What a deal!", said Gescheidler. He recently priced the job at $300 per phone from an independent contractor. "Indiana Bell said *maybe* they could do it a little cheaper for us ... but they say it is not their obligation to resolve the problem any further." He mentioned that, "...one day some guy from WYCA came here with a phone man; they had some cheapie looking filter they plugged in ... it didn't seem to do any good." Although the parent corporation of WYCA in Dallas may have good public relations, the neighborhood says local staff at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. isn't at all concerned any longer. "They have heard so many complaints I guess they quit listening to them any longer," said a neighbor. "When I called one day -- one day when it seemed like they were much louder than usual -- and asked them in a nice way couldn't they modulate their signal a little better, a lady there told me I was being blasphemous. She told me it was anti-religious to complain. She said I should be thankful that I was able to hear the Word of God, and she hoped I would someday realize I would Burn In Hell without accepting Jesus as my Savior. That's the last time I bothered calling *them* to complain. Now the FCC and Indiana Bell say *they* can't do any more either?" No madame, they cannot. As Chris Alexander, VP-Engineering has explained time and again when asked, the Corporation follows all FCC rules at all times. "We ALWAYS do exactly what the government tells us to do," he said. And Indiana Bell brings the wire to the drop by your house. They say the line is as clean as it can be at that point. You do the rest. An old folk-prayer says, "My Lord ... nothing is going to happen that You and I can't handle together. Amen." But one can have too much togetherness, as the residents of North Hammond will attest. Said Steve Gescheidler, "On the radio, they are praying for me. Meanwhile, I am praying for a phone line I can talk on without being disrupted by the choir and the organist." Radio Station WYCA-FM Studios and Executive Offices 6336 Calumet Avenue Hammond, IN 46301 92.3 on FM dial throughout northern Illinois and northern Indiana. [Moderator's Note, appended 1/1/91: Shortly after this article appeared, tbe FCC instructed WYCA to intensify their efforts to resolve the problems of the Hammond residents. 'Better' RF filters were devised and technical help was given in their installation. For about a month, WYCA was required to announce over the air at intervals that assistance would be provided freely on request to anyone within a 1.7 mile radius of the transmitter experiencing problems. There have been no recent complaints, so I assume things are better now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #3 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18998; 3 Jan 91 5:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07907; 3 Jan 91 3:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15199; 3 Jan 91 2:48 CST Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:20:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #4 BCC: Message-ID: <9101030220.ab16209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:20:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Business vs Residence (was: Michigan Bell vs BBSs) [David E. Bernholdt] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [John Higdon] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Peter Marshall] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Bill Berbenich] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Lars Poulsen] Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [John David Galt] Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [Julian Macassey] Re: SLIP Wanted [David E. Martin] Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? [Bill Berbenich] Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers [Randy Borow] Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subscribers [Brian Gordon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) Date: 2 Jan 91 00:57:02 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project I have a few questions relating to the business/residence distinction: 1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and residences differently? Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-) Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business location to pick up the phone and make a call? To receive one? In the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up the tab? 2) Do these arguments still apply in the present day? (For example, most people say that tone dialing is now cheaper to the telco than pulse dialing -- thus negating a major argument for the tone dialing tariff.) 3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force someone to pay business rates? Are they looking at licenses which might be required by the local authorities or registered charitable/non-profit groups? Is the installer looking for some sign that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up? 4) Where will it end? Will I have to pay business rates if I have a terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work occasionally? Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in the paper trying to sell my car? How about if I casually start buying and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old Yugos? David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 2 Jan 91 00:01:53 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Ed Hopper writes: > At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their > opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT > wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's, > and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country > to follow. Well, maybe. In many cases, including California, major changes would have to be made to the tariff structure. In CA, the opening assumption concerning whether business or residence service is appropriate is "where is the line to be installed?" If the line is installed in someone's residence, residential service is assumed UNLESS certain conditions apply. A line installed anywhere else is assumed to be for business service. This would include churches, shelters, charities, etc. Pac*Bell would be hard pressed to charge business service for any BBS installed in someone's home, regardless of "upload requirements" or any other nebulous manifestations of "consideration". On the other hand, if someone logged in and was presented with a rate card, that could easily be construed as a business venture and the service would be subject to regrading accordingly. > The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even > cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can > pack the room with sysops and users! This may be the key. It has often been said that Pac*Bell would never screw around with BBSes, or people who use modems in general because of the high concentration of users and because of the high interest in such matters particularly in the Silly Valley. The MPSC is banking on public disinterest and only a demonstration by the people to the contrary will carry any weight. It is a political fact of life that the minorities and obscure factions take the brunt of laws and regulations. Computer users must make it clear to those in power that as a group, such users are neither passive nor silent. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Robert Woodhead Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 2 Jan 91 16:47:06 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable. | Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 08:32:46 -0800 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. On the other hand, as is frequently the case with such posts, claims are nonetheless made about the significance of the case, etc. Pat's comments do well in providing some other kinds of "corrective" information here re: bus. rates for NPOs, but do not reach the broader question of whether there's valid justification for some of the alleged cost-based distinctions for bus-res rate differentials. Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. To put it a little differently, if you have decided to play on the PUC field, then play effectively; otherwise, it may be preferable not to play at all. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 1:01:55 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Joe Broniszewski queries: > I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's > Egg" by Cliff Stol. The book detailed a true story about computer > espionage. In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure > line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business > (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure > lines. My questions: > 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line > and a non-secure line? There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they use special telephones, not special telephone lines. There is a modern version of the "scrambler" phone around and it uses regular POTS, although a point-to-point setup is possible. > 2. Are calls routed differently? They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type system that all the Federal agencies have access to. FTS can be used to call POTS or other FTS phones. If it is a military agency, they may use a network called AUTOVON. They could also be routed in the usual way that we civilians have our calls routed. Basically all they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that. Secure cellular phones are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from his golf cart up in Maine? That photo seemed to make quite a few papers. > 3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? > 4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? Answer to 3: AT&T is the major contractor for FTS, US Sprint is the minority contractor (60/40% share split, respectively). Answer to 4: they may or may not provide the POTS line and dial tone, depending on the individual setup. Some military installations have their own switching equipment, as I understand it. I may not be 100% on this answer. FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone and data traffic. It is not some secretive, spooky set-up - just a way for the feds to try to control their telephone costs and yet maintain some versatility. Cliff was inaccurate in his assessment of why the spooks wanted to call him back, they may have just been in the middle of something else at the time. Cliff, do you read TELECOM digest? :-) Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:09:33 GMT In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu> astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski) writes: >I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff >mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government >agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on >one of these secure lines. I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. >1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line >and a non-secure line? >2. Are calls routed differently? >3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? >4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@ Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 15:43:02 PST Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90 bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service. However, I'm still paying it. Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the mill" or was abandoned? If telco charges are supposed to be based on what it actually costs them to provide service, then it seems to me that they should offer tone-only service, and it should be cheaper than normal service (which supports both pulse and tone dialing) because the CO equipment can be simpler. Right? ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling Date: 3 Jan 91 05:51:01 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15648@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 902, Message 3 of 10 >jack. (By the way: all the four RJ11 wires are mandatory in Sweden >and are supported by the phone network: there are TWO >twisted-pairlines (for a total of four wires) in the local loop to >each line. Maybe that has something to do with it. This must be something new. When I was in Sweden (1970s), there were only two wires needed. Phones given to me by Ericsson and Televerket in the 80s also only need Tip and Ring. The telephone ICs made by RIFA (Ericsson) are also two wire devices. So what is the second pair of wires used for? Any Ericsson or Tele people care to comment? Silly trivia: Swedish phones have the world's lowest minimum current spec - 12 mA. The U.S. is 20 mA although a 2500 set will usually work fine at 14 mA. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 12:19:50 EST From: David E Martin Subject: Re: SLIP Wanted Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL I posted an article some time ago looking for SLIP. Thanks to eric@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU and lej@quintus.com I found the source several places. Namely: ucdavis.ucdavis.edu, cs.toronto.edu and ucbarpa.berkeley.edu I haven't had much chance to experiment with it yet, but I will post my experiences when I do. David Martin, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL dem@iexist.att.com ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 13:25:00 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I just recently got a new unlisted phone number. The order-taker gave me the "new" number while I waited. After we hung up, I tried the number (even though it would be a week before it was to be connected). I was surprised to be greeted by a real, live female voice when I called. I asked the female voice if she had just gotten new phone service and she replied that no, she'd had that number for a few years. I told her that I had just ordered a "new" number and asked her if her number was NXX-ABCD. She said it yes it is. So I called Ma Bell right back and asked "What the hey?" They looked up my "new" number again and told me that it was really NXX-ACBD. A simple matter of transposed numbers made by a harried order-taker. As yet, I have gotten one wrong number in about two weeks of service. I don't know how long the number cooled off first, but it was not in the phone database on Compuserve so maybe it was out of commission for a while. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 2 14:49:46 CST 1991 Subject: Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers Lance Ware had asked for the new # for the 716 CNA Bureau. I'd be glad to give it to him; however, because of proprietary restrcitions on the company for whom I work, and because a security code (recently changed) is necessary to use the CNA, I cannot pass on the information. I can, however, let our Moderator Pat know that each area code in the contiguous 48 states (as well as Canada, 809,and 808) has a CNA bureau. A few, though, utilize LD directory assistance (1-NPA-555-1212) as its CNA Bureau. Most CNA's are great. All but a couple (Illinois Bell's 312/708 one, for example) require use of security codes/billing ID numbers. One CNA, in fact (Michigan Bell's), is even completely automated. Randy Borow attmail.com!bcm1a09!rborow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 15:53:57 PST From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subsribers The original article referenced only $P$ customers in TX. I'm in CA but, a refund was offered for my dropping off (in favor of GEnie for the kids) as of their start date for "excess message" charges. Except for the fact that I had to send several (six or seven) messages telling them to pull my plug as of the date they started their new charges, quitting seems to be a reasonable process. The first n-1 messages received responses asking that I reconsider, try it for a while and see if the new charges really affected me, etc. I'll be sure when I see their check. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #4 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20284; 3 Jan 91 6:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24413; 3 Jan 91 5:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07907; 3 Jan 91 3:56 CST Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:53:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #5 BCC: Message-ID: <9101030253.ab14858@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:53:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Donn Pedro] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [David Lemson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propogation Characteristics? [Jim Rees] Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [John Higdon] New California Telecom Laws [Marshall Clow] What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer? [John R. Levine] What do You Pay for 64kb X.25? [Hank Nussbacher] Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio! [Kevin Mitchell] Mysteries of Reach Out World [John R. Levine] Cheery New Year Thought [David Ptasnik] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 2 Jan 91 01:10:45 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Brent Chapman writes: > What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was > under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range > (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range > characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because > shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by > reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, > was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the > nearest cell? And what makes you think you were sixty miles from the nearest cell? I have watched, over the past several years, as the PacTel Cellular has been adding site after site to service the high desert area. There are a couple of sites near Barstow, as well as a couple near Victorville. Lately, the coverage has been improved on the Mojave to Barstow route via 58 by the addition of more sites. The main thrust has been the coverage of I15. It is now possible (unlike in the past) to carry on a continuous conversation from Newport Beach to some miles past Barstow on the way to Las Vegas. But take my word for it, there are cell sites involved. It isn't magic propagation. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Donn Pedro Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 2 Jan 91 17:08:37 GMT Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash. In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: : On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and : back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service : coverage. My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent : service almost the whole time I was in California. With the advent, and installation of Cellular RSA (Rural Service Areas), I would not be surprised. : coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate : that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No : Service" only 25% of the time. Remember that the coverage could have been for carriers other than your own if your mobile was set to scan both systems. : I don't have a signal strength display : on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but : I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas, : and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the : Bay Area. You were most likely working off of one of the new RSAs. : What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? Depends on the site. A cell can be tuned to serve almost any area. This can exceed ten miles, especially if it is a repeater site. Transmit power can be as high as 500 watts in some instances. The pattern of service can also be shaped to meet the needs of terrain and traffic considerations. : I was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a : short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this : short-range characteristic is fundamental to making the system work : (because shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total : callers by reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). This is especially true in a densly packed metropolitan area. In a rural area, where it is not ecnomical to have a site every few miles, power is stepped up to conpensate. :How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 :miles from the nearest cell? Sounds far away, but could have been if you were working off of a high power repeater site. : On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and : that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown : San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order : to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase : the total capacity of the system. Is this true? It is. Cells can also be "tiered". That is: a single cell can actually act like two cells. An inner cell and an outer cell. Cells can also have "sides". These can be tuned seperatly to deal with traffic and terrain found in highly congested cities. May I suggest a book. Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Author: William C. Y. Lee Publisher: McGraw Hill ISBN: 0-07-037030-3 It is pretty deep in places but should tell you almost anything you would want to know about cellular, as of 1989. Jenner dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP *Disclaimer? You bet! I speak for myself only.* ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 3 Jan 1991 06:45:00 GMT chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and >that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown >San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order >to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase >the total capacity of the system. Is this true? That is exactly right. Cellular phones are directed to increase or decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength) from the cell tower. This allows more cell sites in a certain area, and thus, more potential users in that same area. This is the principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of airports and office buildings. A cell every few hundred yards. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 18:53:25 GMT In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >... What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I >was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a >short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system... At cellular frequencies (800 MHz) it's pretty much line-of-sight. If you are on one mountain top and the cell antenna is on another, you could have a range of over a hundred miles even running very low power. I always get a kick out of the business droids on the subway in Hong Kong, impatiently punching their cellphone buttons while the no-service light is on in the tunnels. They've been talking of putting slotline (leaky coax) in the tunnels to extend the coverage. Two questions: If I buy a cellphone in HK or Singapore, will it work in North America? And if I have no "home" cell service provider, or my provider is in HK, can I get roaming service here in the US? ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements Date: 2 Jan 91 00:17:54 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Douglas Scott Reuben writes: > A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long > delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could > find out if the problem was not specific to me. I had a problem with FMR after my last trip to LA. While in southern California, I daily set FMR on my handheld except on the day that I drove home. Since I was going to be on the road, it didn't seem like the thing to do. Since FMR cancels automatically at midnight each day, I gave it no further thought. I got back to the Bay Area and after a few days had gone by had a situation where I needed to page someone and have them return the call to my handheld. I waited and waited for the return call. Finally, my pager went off and the number was that of the person I paged. He told me that he had tried to call, but got the "away from the vehicle" recording. I passed it off. The next day, the same thing happened with someone else. I asked, "Was the recorded voice male or female?" "Male", was the response. Well, the GTE Mobilnet (San Francisco) recordings all feature a female voice. You guessed it--FMR was still in effect nearly a week after I had left LA. The fix was simple: dial '*720' which cancels forwarding. For all I know, it's still up in the LA system. It might be a good idea for cellular providers to append their system names to any recordings. It might reveal a stuck FMR or other unintended situation more readily. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 22:14:42 -0800 From: Marshall Clow Subject: New California Telecom Laws >From the {San Diego Union}, 1/1/91, in an article titled "New Laws in '91 Protect Consumers", in a section titled Telephones: Phone solicitors who use recorded messages must begin each call with a live voice announcing the caller or organization represented and get your consent before playing the message. Telephone solicitors must maintain a $50,00 bond for the benefit of anyone who was cheated by the phone solicitor, in the event someone sues the phone solicitor and gets a court judgment. In-state "900" and "976" information providers must present callers with a price disclosure message at the beginning of each call, after which callers can hang up without incurring a charge. ( Not implemented intil July 1). Information provided on the state government toll-free telephone lines must be accessable to the public by both touch-tone and rotary telephones. Local telephone carriers are prohibited from making any change in a telephone subscriber's long distance carrier unless so requested by the subscriber in writing. ------ Does anyone have any more infomation about these new laws? Marshall Clow marshall@sdd.hp.com ------------------------------ Subject: What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer? Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 15:12:50 EST From: "John R. Levine" I just got a particularly deceptive automatic solicitation for a 900 number. First it said that if the number that the computer read back was my phone number and I could answer a trivia question I could be a finalist in their fabulous Hawaiian sweepstakes. Then it read out a phone number which, astonishingly enough, was the one they'd just dialed, and in the event that I didn't know who was the co-host of Wheel of Fortune, gave me three possible answers, the most intriguing of which was Barbara Walters. Then "to make sure we have a clear connection, call me back within the next nine minutes at 900-990-xxxx" and repeated the 900 number a zillion times. Then, obviously hoping I'd hang up, they started some twangy Hawaiian music while blathering about what a swell time I'd have in Hawaii. Suspecting what was to come next, I got my pencil handy, in time for them to say, as quickly as possible, that the call costs $9.95, no call is needed to enter, I can write to: Hawaiian Sweepstakes 316 California Avenue, Suite 987 Reno NV 89509 which is obviously a mail drop. This seems to me grossly deceptive, its sole goal being to get people to spend ten bucks making a phone call for which they receive essentially no value, even assuming that the sweepstakes is real. (As likely as not, it is hotel only, you have to get there yourself.) To whom do I complain? The FCC? The LD carrier (who handles 900-990?) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jan 91 11:13:51 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? Reply-To: Hank Nussbacher Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit. There is no time charge. I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for 64kb X.25 usage. Thanks, Hank ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio! Date: 2 Jan 91 04:31:59 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago Wow! Last week (Thursday?), I was listening to WGN radio here in Chicago (AM 720), and this unusual female voice was reading the weather. After a bit of flap about the host handing the wrong weather report to the substitute weather person ("first weatherman we've had in a long time with a full head of hair "), Roger Triemstra, the usual weatherman, called in. He usually calls in from wherever he is around dinnertime. Problem was, as he said, "I've never used a phone like this before. It looks just like a normal pay phone, but it kept saying my credit card is invalid." 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:15:51 EST From: "John R. Levine" I was perusing a flyer for AT&T's Reach Out World program, and some aspects of it are extremely peculiar. The general plan is that for $3 per month, you get reduced off-peak rates on many international calls as well as 5% off all domestic calls. Most of the rates and times make sense, but some don't. For example, the rate to Panama is slightly higher than that to continental Europe. What's more the peak time for calls to Panama, Peru, and Uruguay is 2PM - 10PM (caller's local time.) Panama keeps the same time as Chicago, Peru keeps the same time as New York, and Uruguay is two hours later than New York, give or take different daylight savings schedules. Does AT&T think that they all sleep late? Peak hours of 2PM-10PM in California translate to 8PM-4AM in Uruguay since it's summer there now. The peak time to Brazil is 8-5, which makes more sense, the same peak time as calls to Canada and the Bahamas. Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive. Calls cost 15 cents/min plus a termination charge that depends on where you call. Calling Mexico City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana. Is that normal? But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where is that? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Cheery New Year Thought Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 17:06:30 PDT Does anyone know if the new price cap legislation takes new services into account? I can see it now. New voice mail and Caller*ID services are introduced at deliberately inflated prices. The are placed into one of the price cap baskets. The artificially overpriced products are reduced, allowing the scoundrels to inflate existing service prices, or at least not lower them as fast as they should. Just a thought. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #5 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19018; 4 Jan 91 6:12 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20237; 4 Jan 91 4:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27863; 4 Jan 91 3:38 CST Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 3:04:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #6 BCC: Message-ID: <9101040304.ab25471@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Jan 91 03:04:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian McMahon] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Larry Chesal] Re: What are Secure Lines? [David Lesher] Random-Dialling Chilren [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert] Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Ed Greenberg] Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System? [Heath Roberts] ClassMate: A Review [Dave Levenson] Re: Another Year Finished [Bob Yazz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 8:57:22 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? In response to a question from Joe Broniszewski about "secure lines" referred to in Cliff Stoll's book, bill says: >There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they >use special telephones, not special telephone lines. But Lars Poulsen says: >I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for >the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. Aha! That sounds plausible. I grew up an "overseas brat" on U.S. Army bases in Germany. AFN, the Armed Forces Network, was constantly running radio spots about OPSEC (OPerations SECurity), which among other things exhorted everyone to answer the phone with "this line is not secure" whenever appropriate. Since we were in Munich, home of the 66th Military Intelligence Group HQ and assorted other spook shops, some people actually took security seriously there. :-) Hardly everyone, though. There was a wonderful cartoon in the _Stars and Stripes_ newspaper for a while, called "Lt. Kadish." This was one of several "local" cartoon strips which appeared in the 'Stripes from time to time. In one cartoon, the left panel showed the Lieutenant in a phone booth asking, "Hello, S-2? Is this a secure line?" [Note: S-2 is the intelligence officer in a unit's staff] The middle panel showed a Soviet officer with headphones, and the right panel showed the S-2 saying, "It sure is." MI gets very little respect *within* the Army, too... :-) This could lead into several other telcom-related stories ... you may not want to get me started. :-) Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 16:11:44 EST From: Larry Chesal Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu>, astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski) writes about "The Cuckoo's Egg". While I haven't gotten around to the book yet, I did see a TV version of the story on the PBS "Nova" program. VERY entertaining and educational. Folks that read this group would probably enjoy the scenes where the hacker's calls are traced through the AT&T network (we've got him to the [Sacramento?] 4E; this is C&P, we've traced him to [Reston?] 4E) until they finally track the call back to Germany where a technician has to check an old mechanical switch circuit by circuit. Cliff Stol does a great job of acting himself. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 19:36:56 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers |In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure |line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business |(ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure |lines. There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted people, it's public. There did exist a class of service called "Special Service Protection" that BSP 460-110-100 discusses. It consisted of special caps on the test points, held on with exotic tie-wrap gadgets. You had to cut the tie to get across the pair -- at least it said that in the book. I figure it would take about thirty seconds to find another place to tap the line. If you need to discuss classified subjects on the phone, use a secure phone. These encrypt your voice with an algorithm that is approved by the appropriate federal agency. Possible sets include the old KY-3, the KY-71/STU-11 and the current favorite: the STU-III (Secure Telephone Unit). Before you ask, no - one model cannot call another. The phone on the far end, when equipped with correct key, decrypts the incoming data into (somewhat ;-} ) understandable voice. So what WAS Cliff talking about? I can hazard several outright guesses as to why the folks in the Intelligence Community would want to call him back each time, but they are guesses -- I have no inside data. 1) If you call back, you have a number. If nothing else, that lets you know where the Yo-Yo owner calling you is located. That's a good start to finding out more about him. It never hurts to know a little about the guy telling you your database is under attack;-} 2) It would take a LOT of manpower for the Bad Guys to collect and transcribe all the traffic on EVERY trunk to one of those building in Virginia or Maryland with the 10 ft barbed wire hedge. So I'd target some offices by extracting and looking at the incoming PBX TT data until I found a call to an extension of interest. This can be defeated to some extent by having lots of OUTGOING trunks, maybe from many locations interconnected by encrypted T1 trunks. When Mr. Trenchcoat wants an outgoing line, he randomly gets one from another site. 3) It sound more mysterious. 4) Some other reason. I'd take 1,4,3,2 as the order on the finish line, but you readers can make your own guess. I'll close with a line a retired Community member told me years ago: Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:21:59 PST From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Random-Dialling Children From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio, Washington, D.C. Here's another story on children dialling telephones. This one (heavily edited) is from the {Washington POST} for 17 November, 1990: When the ringing telephone jolted Audrey Outzs out of a sound sleep early one Sunday morning, she initially thought the crying voice on the other end was a prankster. Within minutes, though, she found herself reaching out to four-year-old Marquita Davis, whose mother had just suffered a stroke, keeping the little girl on the line while Prince George's County [MD] police traced the call and rescued the woman. Brendolyn Davis, 31, spent nearly two months ... recovering from her stroke and now walks with a cane. ... On the morning of Sept. 2, Marquita found her mother unconscious on the bedroom floor of their...apartment with blood running from her nose. The girl began dialing random numbers looking for help. After the first person she reached hung up on her, she got Outzs. Marquita "kept saying, 'My mommy won't wake up, my mommy won't wake up,'" Outzs recalled yesterday. "I told her not to hang up the phone, that help was on the way." Outzs woke her son and told him to keep Marquita on the line while she used another phone line to call police. For the next half-hour, he tried to coax a phone number or an address while police dispatcher [Rita] McClain-Farrow traced the call. Leon Outzs said he kept the girl on the line by talking about cartoons and coloring books. When he heard police knocking on the door, he told Marquita it was all right to let them in. ... "I just did what the county hired me to do," McClain-Farrow said. A police dispatcher for three years, she added, "If Mrs. Outzs hadn't believed her and had just dismissed her as another prankster, I shudder to think what would have happened." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:53 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service I tried out CompuServe's directory service, and, after a few false starts, I got into it (It's NOT GO DIRECTORY, as you might think, and I don't really remember what it is.) When you access this service, CompuServe switches you off to another host computer, operated by the information provider. In other words, only the help files appear on CompuServe, the rest is just a pass through. I tried about ten different listed numbers, and they had them all. I tried two unlisted numbers, mine, and they had neither, nor did they know me by name at my current or previous addresses. What's interesting is that I give out ONE of my unlisted numbers to anyone who asks. Most people who do business with me have it on file. This includes utilities, charge cards and other creditors. Even on recent court papers, and therefore in the public record. Nonetheless, it didn't make it into this service. [Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep. I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System? Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 20:32:42 GMT I have an ITT key system (1A maybe? before my time ... give me digital any day) that's taking up space. I'd like to know if it has any value, and if so, to whom. It uses rotary five-line phones, and can handle three CO lines and one intercom channel. It's wired for four phones (I have three) and was in good working order when it was removed from service (April 1989). Does anyone know of an organization that buys old equipment like this? I realize that it's not worth much, but I hate the idea of throwing it away. The whole thing's still wired, and mounted along with several 66-blocks on a piece of plywood. I want to get rid of the phones too. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: ClassMate: A Review Date: 3 Jan 91 04:45:29 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service. I ordered ClassMate(tm) from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies at 800-523-0552. The price is $49.95. The unit is manufactured by MHE Systems Corporation of Tustin, CA. Catalog number TCCM10. It consists of a plastic minibox with two 6-pin modular connectors (RJ-11) on one end (labeled LINE and PHONE) and a 25-pin RS-232 connector on the other end. The two modular connectors are apparently wired together, allowing you to use this box with your single-line telephone set without an external T connector. The RS-232 connector outputs the data to your computer. The device also obtains its operating power from your computer's RS-232 serial port. It draws power from the RTS or DTR leads (+12 volts) and from the TXD lead (-12 volts). It outputs data on the RXD lead. The other pins on the RS-232 connector, apparently, are not connected. It looks like a modem to your computer, which means that a standard modem cable is all that's needed to attach it to a serial port on your computer. Velcro(tm) fasteners are provided to attach the minibox to the side or your PC. Data from the device is output asynchronously at 1200 bps in ASCII, one stop-bit, 8 data bits, no parity. When the device is powered up (when the computer asserts RTS or DTR and leaves its TXD signal in its normal idle (marking) state) it outputs a power-up message, giving its firmware version number and copyright information. On each inbound call, the device outputs a call message of 31 bytes. The message includes the date, time, complete phone number, a single-character message validity indicator, and an ascii CR and LF. A typical message looks like: 01/02 21:15 (908)647-0900 G followed by \r\n. If the message checksum does not match, the G is replaced by B. If an individual character is received with a parity error, it is replaced by E. Other messages which may be received from the unit are: MM/DD HH:MM OUTSIDE call G MM/DD HH:MM PRIVATE call G *message WAITING* *message CLEARED* (The capitalization is as shown.) These messages indicate that a call from outside your Caller*ID service area was received, that a call has arrived from a caller who used per-call or per-line ID-blocking, or that your telephone company-provided voice mail service has set or cleared the message-waiting status for your line. There is no indication from the device that the call was answered, or how many rings were received. The device contains no buffering, and appears not to recognize any hardware or software flow control. The application must be ready to accept a line of up to 31 bytes at any time that the phone may ring. Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that the device can store the last ten calls. This appears not to be the case, but the demo software (see next paragraph) does provide this capability. A demo program for the device came with it on a 5.25" MS-DOS-formatted diskette. The demo program is a DOS 'terminate and stay-resident' background program that occupies 6K of RAM. It emulates the Call Identifier devices by displaying a 'pop-up window' on your PC each time a call arrives. In this window, you will see that last ten calling numbers displayed. The window will stay on the screen for a user-administerable amount of time, or until you press the ESC key. A user-defined 'hotkey' (by default, ALT-D) recalls the display on demand. The program makes no use of the PC disk, so the history is only maintained while RAM is valid. Obviously, any computer with an RS-232 serial port capable of asynchronous operation at 1200 bps can interface with this device, though Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that it requires an IBM PC-compatible. (The demo software does require this environment.) The device may also be plugged directly into a printer's serial port, if one merely wants a printed log of inbound calls. The printer must be capable of accepting 31-character lines to be printed without requiring flow-control. The documentation consists of a thirteen-page instruction manual. The manual gives the complete format of every message output by the device, and also describes how to plug it in. The description of the RS-232 interface incorrectly labels PIN 4 as CTS (but they meant RTS -- CTS is pin 5) and indicates which leads contain data, and which are used to supply power to the device. I have not opened the device, because I want to preserve my rights under the manufacturer's one-year guarantee. (It appears that it can be opened by removing the phillips-head screw located under the serial number label.) I guess that it contains a microcomputer, two uarts, and a modem chip. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Another Year Finished Date: 3 Jan 91 02:03:42 GMT In a few more years when the millenium turns over (watch out for "Millenium Madness" as the fateful date approaches), I venture to predict that there will be two camps: The Arthur C. Clarke camp (_2001: A Space Odessy_) The Prince camp (_1999_). Who is right? The Arthur C. Clarke people. Who will have the biggest parties? The Prince people. The thought of the the 2001 people telling the 1999 people that the "big event" won't happen for another year brings to mind Pee Wee Herman scolding the bikers in the biker bar "Could you puh-LEAZE keep it down, I'm TRY-ing to use the phone!" Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #6 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15314; 5 Jan 91 5:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09133; 5 Jan 91 4:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32059; 5 Jan 91 3:05 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 2:54:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #7 BCC: Message-ID: <9101050254.ab15554@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 02:54:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cable Cut Between NY and NJ [Nicholas J. Simicich] AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut [Curtis Sanford] Cellular Roaming [Mark Jensen] Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations [Phil Weinberg] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Tad Cook] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Paul Schleck] Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S. [John R. Covert] Cordless Phone Info Wanted [Matt Simpson] Wireless Phone Jacks [Jeff Sicherman] Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael H. Riddle] Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware [Sean Williams] Data Cost Comparison [Jeff Crowder] History of Telephony in Sweden [Robert Lindh] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 11:23:45 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Reply-To: Nick Simicich Subject: Cable Cut Between NY and NJ I just heard that there was a major fiber cut in Newark, New Jersey. 24 T3's were cut, according to the phone company. The circuits affected terminated in or passed through New York City. My wife's company lost two circuits (they had just switched all of the rest of their circuits to another supplier, otherwise they would have been totally off the air). I have no other details. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@ibm.com) ---SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: Curtis Sanford Subject: AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut Date: 4 Jan 91 17:00:28 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications -- San Francisco I was just unable to complete a direct dialed call from San Francisco to London. When I contacted the AT&T operator, she also initially failed ("Unable to complete your call as dialed. Please check the number or call your AT&T operator for assistance."), and told me that they had a major cable cut near York, PA that was causing difficulties. With some additional effort, she was able to reach a UK operator and complete the call. This was at 9:40am PST. ------------------------------ From: Mark Jensen Subject: Cellular Roaming Date: 3 Jan 91 16:21:07 GMT Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} I recently signed on with GTE Mobilnet for cellular service. I have heard that there are several different ways to obtain cellular service while roaming in California, including " Follow Me Roaming". I would appreciate any thoughts or information that newsgroup readers could provide on the diffrent types of roaming arrangements. Thank you, Mark Jensen [Moderator's Note: Perhaps readers will correspond direct with Mark and explain the different methods. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Weinberg SPS Subject: Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations Date: 3 Jan 91 21:34:33 GMT Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303 I have just received a mail notice that public hearings will be held concerning the application and awarding of a cellular telephone antenna site about a block from my home. I am curious if anyone has ever attended these types of hearings and what kinds of questions have been raised, or should have been. Should I be concerned about rfi from this site? Will it cause "interference" on my TV and/or FM receivers, even though I'm sure the cellular company will guarantee that their transmissions will be within the allowable FCC limits? What about pickup on my telephone lines, which I think pass pretty close to the antenna site? I would appreciate any information available, with suggested questions to ask at the hearing. << Usual Disclaimer >> Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395 UUCP: {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil Telephone: +1 408-991-7385 ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 15:49:59 PST In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: > On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and > back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service > coverage. (stuff deleted) > What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was > under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range > (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range > characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because > shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by > reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, > was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the > nearest cell? The size of the cell depends on the elevation of the cell site. In urban areas it makes sense to have a lot of little cells to handle a large number of callers. Out in the desert you could be served by just a few cells at high elevation, or directional cells that cover a whole lot of highway. You also can't be too sure (if you are an average user without special knowledge of the system) just how far you were from the nearest cells. Over the route you travelled, there is probably plenty of incentive for the cellular providers to have coverage at least along the main highways. > On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and > that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown > San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order > to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase > the total capacity of the system. Is this true? Yes. 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: Fri, 04 Jan 91 21:35:40 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Cellular phone operates at about 900-950 Mhz. This may be properly termed microwave. Propogation of waves at this frequency are essentially line of sight. They are so energetic that they (usually) cannot be bent by the atmosphere, so hence no significant multi-hop, over the horizon propogation. Under conditions of tropospheric inversion, i.e. higher layers of the atmosphere warmer than lower ones, a phenomenon known as "ducting" may occurr, under which the waves are made to conform to the curve of the earth. Propogation under ducting conditions may be up to several hundred miles. It is true that usually microwave RF does not travel very far for a number of reasons. For one, it does not follow the curve of the earth under normal circumstances. For another, its short wavelenth means that it is rapidly attenuated by foliage, walls, humid air, etc. What is the height difference between where you were and the cell sites back in CA? If there was enough of a height difference to cause an obstruction-free straight line path, that may be another explanation. One of the reasons that cellular technology works is "capture effect." What that means is that only the strongest signal being received is actually demodulated in an FM signal. The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion group. Also, cellular systems use a voting system to insure that only the cell with the strongest signal is used for the phone conversation. In short, it is the combined reasons of line-of-sight paths, capture effect, and cell voting that cellular systems work. For another propogation anecdote, a friend of mine accessed the Washington DC cell system from the middle of New Jersy under conditions of tropospheric ducting, so it certainly can be done. I wonder what the phone company or the FCC thinks of these "long distance" calls? Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:06 -0500 From: "John R. Covert 03-Jan-1991 2151" Subject: Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S. Jim Rees asks if he could buy a cellular phone in Hong Kong and use it in North America. Since he seems to be at U.Mich., I'm not sure why he would want to. Cellular phone equipment prices in Hong Kong were much, much higher (about US$1000 higher) than in the U.S. when I was there in November 1989. Service, however, is very cheap. Hong Kong has both TACS (compatible with England) and AMPS (compatible with the U.S.) systems. Three companies run TACS (or ETACS) sytems, one of those runs the world's only combined TACS/AMPS system. A U.S. or Canadian subscriber may sign up with Hutchison Telephone to obtain service while in Hong Kong; a Hutchison Telephone subscriber with AMPS equipment may sign up to roam while visiting the U.S. or Canada. Credit card signup is required, and, of course, when coming to the U.S. from Hong Kong, signup is required with each separate system you plan to visit. TACS roaming between the U.K. and Hong Kong is provided only between Racal Vodafone (in the U.K.) and Hong Kong Telephone/CSL. U.K. Cellnet subscribers cannot roam in Hong Kong, and Hutchison and Pacific Link subscribers cannot roam in the U.K. (At least as of last summer.) The only information I have on Singapore is that they have an AMPS system there, which would be compatible with the U.S. Whether roaming is possible or not, I can't say. I'm also not familiar with equipment prices. john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 08:01:58 EST From: Matt Simpson Subject: Cordless Phone Info Wanted Sometime last year, I saw a magazine article entitled "Hot New Electronics Items", listing products recently, or soon to be, available. One which seemed intresting was the following description: Super cordless phone. Provides a clear signal up to four miles from its base unit ... although you can use it ( with some distortion) for up to eight miles. Pac Tel/Great Technologies. Model SST. Expected availability, 1991. $149. Does anybody have any info on this, or a phone number/address for Pac Tel or Great Technologies? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 10:58:31 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Wireless Phone Jacks The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 13:18:23 cst From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting >From comp.modems, with obvious applicability to comp.dcom.telecom: QUOTED TEXT FOLLOWS: There's been a lot of talk about Caller ID in [comp.modems] lately, so I thought I would add a Caller ID question, only indirectly related to modems. What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes in while your connected elsewhere? I presume what happens is you just don't get any caller id info on the waiting call, whether or not you accept it. My understanding is that the caller id info is part of the ring signal, and if it doesn't ring you don't get the info. The reason this is partly related to modems is my pet peeve with TB modems in PEP mode. PEP mode generally retrains around the call waiting beep, without ever letting you know about it. This is what many people want, but not what I want. I would rather drop the data call and get the incoming call. If Caller ID worked with Call Waiting, I could rig something up. Originally posted in comp.modems by: Ken Mandelberg | km@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km UUCP Dept of Math and CS | km@emory.bitnet NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 | Phone: (404) 727-7963 [Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on those calls, or not? PAT] ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 3 22:52:38 EST 1991 Subject: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware mk@wroach.cactus.ork (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box the recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering? Bell Atlantic Business Supplies has such a device in their catalog. The article in the catalog reads as follows: | Ring Leader interprets the ringing pattern set for each phone | number on your single line (normal ring, 2 short rings, 2 | long rings, etc.) and sends the incoming call to the correct | phone or accessory. Privacy switch prevents interruption of | important faxes or conversations. The Ring Leader is listed as being produced by Tel Control, Inc. The list price in the catalog is $54.95, part #TC1081. Bell's order line is 1-800-523-0552, fax (215) 534-5738. Their address is: Bell Atlantic Business Supplies 456 Creamery Way Exton, PA 19341-9988 USA Sean E. Williams ------------------------------ From: Jeff Crowder Subject: Data Cost Comparison Date: 4 Jan 91 14:34:10 GMT Organization: Va Tech Communications Resources Hello, I'm making a cost comparison for which I need a commercial alternative rate for a campus CBX switched data connection. To clarify, we currently have a Rolm CBX with data switching installed to about 10,000 sets on campus. Current data rate tops at 19.2 kbps for users (the number is supposed to increase shortly). Users attach terminals or PC's with emulation to connect to mainframe and other hosts. We charge a monthly fee for each data connection. I would like to compare our price to commercial alternatives which I presume would be provided by a local telco. Perhaps a CO lan arrangement or tariffed ISDN service. Can anyone suggest a reasonable comparison and provide some idea of the current rates charged by the telco for the service identified? Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. I can send a synopsis to anyone interested or will post summary to net if swamped with requests. Jeff Crowder jcrowder@GroupW.cns.vt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 16:19:17 +0100 From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Subject: History of Telephony in Sweden Source: 'Televerkets faktabok 1991' (Swedish Telecom book of facts 1991), published by Swedish Telecom (the telephone operating company in Sweden). Translation from Swedish made by me. History of telephony in Sweden: ------------------------------- 1853 First telegraph line in use 1877 First telephone line in use 1880 First telephone directory 1881 First local telephone network 1924 First automatic telephone exchange in operation (500-selector switch) 1930 500.000 telephones in service 1942 1.000.000 telephones in service 1946 Automatic telex network operational 1949 First possibility to make long-distance call without operator assistance 1963 First modem is sold 1972 All telephone exchanges automatic 1980 First AXE-exchanges in service (stored program controlled switches) 1981 First automatic cellular network (cover Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) 1982 7.000.000 telephones in service 1987 Country wide digital long-distance network is opened ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #7 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16451; 5 Jan 91 6:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17461; 5 Jan 91 5:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09133; 5 Jan 91 4:10 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 3:17:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #8 BCC: Message-ID: <9101050317.ab07060@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 03:17:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany [John R. Covert] Conference Report: The Future of the Internet [Jane M. Fraser] Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:00 -0500 From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany The information on the left is directly from the German Post Office; translation (limited due to space) on the right is provided by me. Abbreviations: ONKz: Ortsnetzkennzahl: City code (without "0") Rufnr: Rufnummer: Telephone number (without prefix) Informationen zur Vorwahl Prefix information Fuer Telefongespraeche in die neuen Bun- For telephone calls to the new deslaender gilt die Laendervorwahl 0037. states use country code 0037. Achtung: Von Berlin (West) aus nur 037. Note: Just 037 from W. Berlin. Bei Orten, die im Selbstwaehlferndienst For towns which can be reached vom ehemaligen Bundesgebiet aus zu er- by direct-dialing from the reichen sind, wird im ETB beim Teilneh- western part of Germany, the mereintrag die dafuer gueltige Vorwaahl valid prefix is shown in the angezeigt. electronic phone book. Ist keine Vorwahl angegeben, ist dieser If no prefix is shown, then Ort noch nicht im Selbstwaehlferndienst this town is not yet directly zu erreichen. dialable. Fuer Telefongespraeche aus den neuen Bun- The following prefixes are deslaendern in das ehemalige Bundesgebiet valid for calls from the new gelten folgende Laendervorwahlen: states into western Germany: Nach Berlin (West): To West Berlin: Berlin (Ost) East Berlin nach Berlin (West) 8+49+Rufnr. to West Berlin Potsdam, Stadt und Landkreis Potsdam, City and County nach Berlin (West) 0+49+Rufnr. to West Berlin Kreise Koenigswusterhausen, Koenigswusterhausen, Nauen Nauen und Oranienburg and Oranienburg counties nach Berlin (West) 07+Rufnr. to West Berlin Kreis Zossen Zossen County nach Berlin (West) 04+Rufnr. to West Berlin Frankfurt (Oder), Stadt und Frankfurt on the Oder, City Landkreis nach Berlin (West) 092+Rufnr. and County, to West Berlin In das ehemalige Bundesgebiet: To western Germany, from: Berlin (Ost) 06+49+ONKz+Rufnr. East Berlin Rostock, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Rostock District Schwerin, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Schwerin District Neubrandenburg, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Neubrandenburg District Erfurt, Bezirk 07+ONKz+Rufnr. Erfurt District Suhl, Stadt und Landkreis 04+ONKz+Rufnr. Suhl, City and County uebrige Orte des Bezirks Remaining places in the Suhl 0004+ONKz+Rufnr. Suhl District Gera, Stadt und Land- Gera, City and County kreis *) 07+ONKz+Rufnr. uebrige Orte des Bezirks Remaining places in the Gera *) 0015+ONKz+Rufnr. Gera District Saalfeld, Kreis Saalfeld Saalfeld, Saalfeld County und Kreis Rudolstadt *) 015+ONKz+Rufnr. and Rudolstadt County *) Selbstwaehlferndienst ist taeglich von Direct dial service is allowed 23.00 bis 06.00 Uhr zugelassen from 11PM to 6AM daily. Magdeburg, Stadt und Magdeburg, City and County Landkreis 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Halle, Stadt und Halle, City and County Landkreis 03+ONKz+Rufnr. Leipzig, Stadt und Leipzig, City and County Landkreis sowie Kreis as well as Delitzsch County. Delitzsch (nicht nach (not to West Berlin) Berlin (West)) 06+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Dresden, Stadt und Dresden, City and County Landkreis 07+ONKz+Rufnr. Cottbus, Stadt und Cottbus, City and County Landkreis (nicht nach (not to West Berlin) Berlin (West)) 04+ONKz+Rufnr. Chemnitz, Stadt und Chemnitz, City and County Landkreis 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Bemerkungen: Notes: Aus allen anderen Bereichen sind die Ge- From all other areas, calls spraeche ueber das zustaendige Fernamt must be booked through the anzumelden. operator. Vom Bezirk Frankfurt/Oder ist z.Z. noch From Frankfurt/Oder, no direct kein Selbstwaehlferndienst in das ehema- dial service to western Germany lige Bundesgebiet moeglich. is currently available. Die Ortsnetzkennzahl (ONKz) ist grund- Always dial the city code saetzlich ohne die Null zu waehlen. without the zero. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 09:33:21 est From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Conference Report: The Future of the Internet [Moderator's Note: Jane M. Fraser wrote this article which will appear in print later this month; she has kindly provided an advance copy to TELECOM Digest for your consideration. PAT] [The following article will appear in the January CAST Calendar. To be added to the hard-copy mailing list for this newsletter reply to this message or write: Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210] The Internet is network of computer networks used primarily by educational and research establishments. The parts of the Internet that have been funded by federal resources (for example, NSFNET) may be used only for activities that support education and research. Other parts have not been so funded, and usage is not restricted. Various proposals have been made to extend the Internet to more institutions, to allow commercial use on all parts of the Internet, and to increase the bandwidth of the federally supported part of the network. On November 29 through December 1, I was one of approximately 150 attendees at a conference addressing various issues about the future of the Internet. I have always felt very confused about what is the Internet, what are the restrictions on usage, what different parts of the network are doing, and what options are open for the future. I learned one fact for certain at this conference: almost everyone else is confused also. I will report on some of the specifics of what happened at the conference, putting emphasis on aspects I think will be of most interest to the readers of the Calendar, but I am also confident that, no matter how careful I am, this report will contain errors. The conference, Information Infrastructure for the 1990s, was sponsored by two programs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University: Science, Technology and Public Policy and Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector. The two primary organizers were Lewis Branscomb and Jerry Mechling. The two-and-a-half days were heavily packed with presentations of commissioned papers, comments by panels of discussants, and open discussion from the floor. The main points the conference reinforced for me are, first, the growing importance of computer networks for fast communication and, second, the growing importance, for many users, of interconnectivity of networks. The first needs little comment. The second may be of importance more to some sectors, especially academics, than to others. Academics and researchers often want to communicate with a wide range of people and, thus, want to be able to send electronic mail to people on many different networks. Some companies may want their employees to communicate only within the company, not with those outside it, but others find interorganizational communication to be very important. Some networks already interconnect (although not completely), for example, AT&T Mail, CompuServe, and the Internet. Others are isolated, for example, Prodigy. Many barriers, institutional and technical, make it difficult to interconnect networks, but, I believe, there will be increasing demand from users to do so. At the federal level, a proposal has been put forth for federal funding of NREN, the National Research and Education Network, which would, roughly, be an extremely high bandwidth version of the Internet. (The latter sentence is undoubtedly not error free.) Most uses of supercomputers, almost by definition, require and generate huge amounts of data. For example, at the conference, we viewed a short tape of a simulation of the formation of a thundercloud. Remote access to supercomputers has always been cited as a justification for investing federal money in the Internet, and this again is one of the major reasons cited for the need for NREN. Indeed, the ability to create and manage a network at the data speeds being contemplated is itself viewed as a research issue. However, other participants argued that "low-end" use, that is, use not requiring high bandwidth, is also an appropriate topic for research. As the network expands and usage grows (which is happening at an amazing rate), questions arise about the ability of existing mechanisms to handle traffic. These participants argued that the networking of the large numbers of computers on the Internet (and its affiliates) is also worthy of attention, even without the addition of more bandwidth. This discussion of the importance of low-end use was naturally related to issues of allowing more general access to the Internet, for example, for K through 12 educational institutions. Currently, most academic users of the Internet receive access through their institution's connection. While the institution itself bears considerable cost, most academic end users do not receive a bill for usage. Internet connectivity to researchers is viewed by many academic institutions as being analogous to the library (for which usage fees are generally not charged to the end user or to the end user's academic unit), rather than analogous to the phone (for which such usage fees are charged). The user (or the academic unit) usually must provide a terminal or personal computer. Here at OSU, the computer magnus provides Internet access for anyone who requests it. (Actually, this is not quite accurate; magnus accounts will shortly be available to all OSU users.) One paper, "Pricing the NREN: The Efficient Subsidy," by Gerald Faulhaber, presented an economist's arguments against current pricing and subsidization schemes. Several commercial enterprises have been created (for example, PSI) to provide Internet access for commercial enterprises. Recall that commercial use is allowed as long as the use is in support of research and education. For example, a researcher at a commercial enterprise can communicate with researchers at academic institutions on research topics. A company can also communicate with researchers about its products. Two commercial users on different commercial networks must be very careful, however, since their communication with each other might traverse parts of the network on which commercial traffic is forbidden. However, it is often difficult for the user to predict what route a message will take. If all this seems arcane and unclear, it is. Many people (including Alison Brown of the Ohio Supercomputer Center) are working to make these aspects less arcane and more clear. One paper, "The Strategic Future of the Mid-Level Networks," by Paulette Mandelbaum and Richard Mandelbaum, explored various possible models for relationships between commercial and educational enterprises on the Internet. A portion of the conference had an Ohio focus. Jerry Mechling visited Ohio this summer and interviewed many people in order to write a case paper, which was presented and discussed at the conference, An Information Infrastructure Strategy for Ohio. Partly because of this, we had a fairly sizeable Ohio contingent at the conference: Gerald Anglin (Litel), Alison Brown (Ohio Supercomputer Center), Sally Cousino (Ohio Bell), Nick Farmer (Chemical Abstracts), myself (CAST), Jerry Hammett (State of Ohio), Don Olvey (OCLC), Tim Steiner (State of Ohio), and Ron Vidmar (State of Ohio). I found one of the most successful parts of the conference to be our caucuses, both before and after the conference. Other papers presented at the conference included "Information Infrastructure for the 1990s: A Public Policy Perspective," by Lewis Branscomb; "Technology Issues in the Design of the NREN," by Leonard Kleinrock; "Life after Internet: Making Room for New Applications," by Larry Smarr and Charles Catlett; "A Coming of Age: Design Issues in the Low-end Internet," by Ken Klingenstein; and "The NREN as Information Market: Dynamics of Public, Private, and Voluntary Publishing," by Brian Kahin. Copies of all the papers are available for loan from the CAST office. There were also smaller sessions involving presentations on current uses of the Internet. One presentation was by Allan Weis, from Advanced Network and Services, Inc., ANS, a "nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of education and research." ANS is funded by IBM and MCI to help build computer networks. As with all conferences, some of the most important discussions went on in the hallways and at meals and some of the most important results were the contacts made. Despite my dismay at finding myself at a conference with presenters who were all white males (including one who addressed the group as "gentlemen"), I think the conference was excellently organized and run. I applaud the organizers for focussing us on such an important issue: information infrastructure for the 1990s. ------------------------------ From: Kari Hardarson Subject: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 4 Jan 91 19:19:18 GMT Reply-To: Kari Hardarson Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill I realize this must be a very elementary question, but I've gone through the last 400+ messages and found no reference to it so here goes: I need a list that highlights the differences between telephonic equipment in the U.S. and Europe (Scandinavia, actually). I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a Panasonic phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether the phone will work at all for that matter. Will be waiting anxiously for answers since I bought the phone already... Many thanks in advance, Kari Hardarson 217 Jackson Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #8 ****************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24787; 5 Jan 91 15:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11918; 5 Jan 91 13:22 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23810; 5 Jan 91 12:17 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #9 BCC: Message-ID: <9101051206.ab08924@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [TELECOM Moderator] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jack Winslade] More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie] Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands [Ralph Noonen] Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Ralph Noonen] Incoming Calls Only ... Why? [Sean Williams] Answer*Call in Atlanta Area [Bill Berbenich] 10-NJB in New Jersey [Jay Vassos-Libove] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 10:49:43 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People Beginning February 1, phone companies in Illinois will reduce phone bills by $6.72 per month for poor people, but raise bills 15 cents for everyone else. According to the brochure now being circulated to the estimated 620,000 low-income residents in our state, this will appear each month on phone bills as a 'reduction for low-income customers'. To qualify for the program, called Link-Up II, a phone subscriber must participate in a low-income program such as food stamps, the Illinois general assistance program, or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Half the funding for the monthly reduction will come from federal funds, and half from a fifteen cent monthly charge imposed on the other customers of the telcos. The program is designed to ensure that everyone can afford basic phone service. Illinois Bell estimates tbat about 95 percent of all households in its territory have phones. The amount of the subsidy and offsetting customer charge is detirmined by a forumula set by the federal government. Illinois Bell states they had nothing to do with setting the amount or the method in which the subsidy would be collected. Currently, the minimum monthly phone bill in Chicago and densely populated suburbs is about $10 for a customer who does not have Touch-Tone or custom calling services. The minimum charge is about $12.50 in most other suburbs of northern Illinois. The $6.72 per subscriber reduction will come off these amounts. A second phone subsidy for low-income residents which is already in effect pays for half ($27.50) of the $55.00 service installation charge. This subsidy is funded by the federal government. It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal telephone service is a desirable goal. But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view of business subscribers. Business places would find phone service particularly useful if they could call residences. So let the businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since. What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 91 19:25:16 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 >The following cross-posted information is extracted from alt.cosuard. I'm not gonna say that the ENTIRE article was bovine doo-doo, but ... >area there are now at BUSINESS RATES. Which means $50 per month base >rates, plus MUCH higher long distance charges. The last clause of the last sentence definitely reeks, and this should be obvious to readers of this conference. Businesses often pay LESS than residence users for some services, and long distance charges are one area in which they can save, if they are large enough to negotiate rates or if they get a few points off through an aggregator. (Yes, I know, most business calls are during the day. So what. ;-) Another area where businesses pay less than 'civilians' is cellular services. Corporate accounts (directly) with the carrier are often substantially less than the extortive rates given with that FREE cellular phone with four new tires from Midnight Auto Supply. But again, back to my point. {mounting high horse} I am getting sick of this endless-loop 'the sky is falling' {modem tax | business rate | BBS law} rumor that keeps playing ad nauseam. In 1985 there was supposed to be this New Federal Law coming Real Soon Now that would put all kinds of clamps on BBS systems. When the text of the bill surfaced, it was nothing more than a well-intentioned kiddie-porn law that included digitized video among the media with movie film, videotape, and mimeograph on paper towels. Since then, the same story, altered slightly each iteration, keeps coming back regularly. This (Indiana) affair may be a REAL concern of the BBS community, but they (the ubiquitous 'they') have cried 'wolf' so many times that people are thinking that all stories along the line are caca, especially when they include a genuine road-apple like the 'higher long-distance rates'. {dismounting from high horse} Any ideas ?? Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:31:42 EST From: USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates It is riduculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do not make a profit. Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are cheap :)], but most don't bother. For most sysops, it is an expensive HOBBY, like radio-controlled airplanes or model railroading. Wouldn't it make more sense for the phone company to WELCOME a sysop, because of the extra line that is normally installed? For the extra income? And for the increased long-distance charges incurred when the sysop has to call the support BBS for his/her particular software, which is usually on the opposite coast from his/her location? I received some good advice a year ago when COSUARD was still slugging it out with SWB. If the phone company calls you, the sysop, asking about your BBS, tell them you are a HOBBYIST BBS, and not a NON-PROFIT. Non-profit means to them that you do have a large budget to pay inflated business rates. Another thing, GTE Michigan decided to go after Variety-N-Spice for two reasons: it's the biggest BBS in the state, and it is an ADULT BBS. Set the legal guns on the biggest adult board in the state. When it falls, so will all the rest. Enough on the soapbox. The precedent set by Michigan will no doubt be taken up by NYTel; they tried it before; they'll try it again. The precident will have a very bad effect on hobbyist BBSs, that serve a vital purpose to telecomputerists that are not fortunate enough to have an account to Internet or Bitnet, or are too broke to call Compu$erve. Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think about what they do to modemers. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define what is a 'business' and what is not. If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to access it and gain informtion from it, why is he different than Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money to access their system and gain information from them? The one has a 'staff and a budget' you say? Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and what is not? There are many, many one-person businesses in the USA. Lots of people work from home with no staff and litle budget. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET Subject: Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands Regarding BBS's in the United States being charged a business tariff for their phone lines, and the subsequent remark that perhaps charitable and religious institutions should get a lower tariff: In the Netherlands, all religious institutions that are officially registered get a reduced tariff. I'm not sure on this, but I even think they get all service for FREE! Ralph Moonen voice: +31.2155.24356 rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com ------------------------------ From: rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET Subject: Notes on the Phone System in Holland The Dutch phone system is a monopoly of the Dutch PTT. They do not allow reselling of lines, except on toll-free numbers. Regular Dutch numbers consist of an area code, and a three to seven digit number. Large cities have a three digit code, small places a five digit code. All codes start with a '0' which is to be omitted when being called from abroad. Further we have special tariff numbers, that all start with 06. 06 followed by a 3 are mostly chat-lines, and/or dial-a-porn kinda lines. (When in Holland try 06-320.320.69) This service costs $0.29 per minute. 06 followed by a 0 are toll free numbers, and generally these numbers start with 06-022 followed by four digits. 06 followed by anything else can get you paging equipment, cellular phones, special service operators, directory assistance etc, and can cost anything between $0.00 and $0.29 per minute. 06-0410 is the Teleplus operator, the PTT service for collect calls, card calls and other operator assisted calls. You can reach this operator from the States by calling 1-800-432-0031. Beware: it can take as long as ten minutes on hold before you are helped. This outrageous long waiting time has caused me to write a letter of complaint to the Dutch PTT, to which I have not yet received any response. I'll keep you informed on this. 06-0418 is directory assistance for international calls. Normal services include: 002 - speaking clock 003 - weather forecast 004 - has been moved to 06-0410, see above. 006x- maintainance and service personnel numbers 007 - Help-desk & reporting of malfunctions 008 - normal directory assistance. 001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the 06-041x range. I'll be glad to answer any other questions you have on the Dutch telephone system including technical questions on routing and switching equipment. Ralph Moonen voice: +31.2155.24356 rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 4 15:59:39 EST 1991 Subject: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? I recently acquired a job at a local pizza shop in Enola, PA. They have two phones which customers call to place orders. The number is 732-4000. When a customer calls, the first phone rings in a "2-short-ring" pattern, similar to Bell Atlantic's "Identa*Ring" service, I would assume. When another customer calls, but the first customer is still on the line, the call rings on the second phone, with the same ring-pattern. A few days ago, I needed to use one of the phones to make an outgoing local call to a customer to verify something on an order. I was not permitted to do so (another employee stopped me). He said that the phones could not be used to make outgoing calls. This seemed odd to me, so I asked another employee. The other employee told me that the two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate calls. I picked up the receiver on one of the phones, and there was a dial tone. I did not try to make a call, however. The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone. The local telco is Bell of Pennsylvania (Bell Atlantic Company). Does anyone have any information about this? Or can prove why the other employees are incorrect? Thanks! Sean E. Williams AT&T mail: seanwilliams@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Semi-public (that is a billing distinction only) coin phones can legitimatly have extensions on them for answering purposes only. If what your co-worker said is true -- although it seems to be an odd configuration -- then although you get dial tone when the extension goes off hook, when a number is dialed money would be demanded, and where would you insert it? I say it is an odd configuration because I've never heard of two payphones being arranged to hunt each other when busy. Some incoming only lines do provide dial tone when taken off hook (others -- most? -- simply have battery on the line) but dialing anything but maybe 911/611 returns an intercept message. Maybe your co-worker meant you should *use* the payphones to make calls out. Try some calls and let us know what happens. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Answer*Call in Atlanta Area Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 20:03:39 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu According to my latest phone bill, SouthernBell is now offering Answer*Call service for the Atlanta area. The cost according to the enclosure is $3.95 per month, but when I called the business office I was quoted $6.95. I'm not really interested in the service since I already have an answering machine - and isn't that all Answer*Call really is? It's an answering machine that you pay Ma Bell for in perpetuity. So anyway, I can't account for the difference in the quoted rates - I'd call the business office back to pin them down for a rate if I was really interested. In order to have the service, you must also subscribe to Call Forwarding, No-Answer Transfer, and/or Busy Transfer. You would simply forward your phone to the Answer*Call voice mailbox (or is it voicemail box? :-). Seeing as how one can get an answering machine fairly cheap and with the "message transfer" whereby the machine will call you at a specific number to tell you that there is a message waiting, why would anyone want to get this Answer*Call? The only reason I can see for getting it is to take your calls while you are on the phone and don't want Call*Waiting to beep you or you don't have Call*Waiting in the first place. Oh yeah, supposedly many people can leave messages at once to you with this service - in essence it is acting as a multi-line answering machine. That might be another reason to get it, so that if a hundred people call you all at the same time none will get a busy and all can leave a message right then and there. I don't fault Southern Bell for offering the service, I just think that an educated consumer would avoid the service. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: It is a matter of individual taste and application. I have voicemail from Centel here, and much prefer it over conventional answering machines. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 01:16:46 -0500 From: Jay Vassos-Libove Subject: 10-NJB in New Jersey I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT). What I wonder is this: since New Jersey Bell offers the 10-NJB service, but New Jersey Bell is a Bell Operating Company, how can they offer an interstate service at all? I thought that a company was either a local operating service or a long distance one, but not both? Probably, I don't understand. Could someone in the know post a clarification of exactly what the rules are (uh oh, BIG request there!!) governing phone companies (what major types of services can they offer, and what prohibitions come with offerings of particular services)? Thanks! Jay ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #9 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10007; 6 Jan 91 6:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13811; 6 Jan 91 4:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31571; 6 Jan 91 3:24 CST Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 3:15:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #10 BCC: Message-ID: <9101060315.ab29551@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Jan 91 03:15:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Service Interruption [Sean Williams] Cellular Systems Around the World [John R. Covert] Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Paul Coen] Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert W. Lucky, via TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sat Jan 5 14:24:21 EST 1991 Subject: AT&T Service Interruption The following is a summary of several newswire stories about the interruption in AT&T's long distance service which occurred yesterday: American Telephone & Telegraph Co. accidentally ripped apart one of its own fiber optic cables, disabling major commodity exchanges and disrupting service throughout New York City. The company revealed earlier this afternoon that its own contruction crews had inadvertently severed an active cable under a Newark avenue yesterday, while attempting to remove an inoperative one. AT&T began investigating technical problems at 0930 EST creating hours of havoc in long-distance calling to and from New York. About 60 percent of the calls into and out of the metropolitan area were met with a recorded message saying that all circuits were busy, said Jim Messenger, a spokesman for the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. The problem also disrupted some overseas calls, the company said. Hundreds of flights to and from Newark, Kennedy and LaGuardia airports were delayed, and some incoming planes were diverted elsewhere because air traffic controllers were unable to communicate. The loss of the cable, which could transmit more than 100,000 calls at once, underlined how society's rising reliance on new technology carries a risk because it concentrates so much information in one potentially vulnerable place. A few years ago, that volume of calls would have been spread over numerous, less efficient cables. "These failures don't occur very often, but when they do occur, there's the potential to have an impact across a broad part of the population," said Casimir Skrzypczak, vice president of science and technology at the New York regional phone company Nynex Corp. Local service and long-distance service provided by other companies, such as MCI Communications Corp. and US Sprint Communications Co. (a unit of United Telecommunications Inc.) were not affected. In fact, An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed operators in the New York area to provide customers with access codes to its long-distance competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT. AT&T was criticized last year when it waited more than three hours to distribute the special codes required for AT&T customers to places calls on MCI or Sprint networks. Disruption was widespread, however, because American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is the United States's largest long-distance carrier, handling about 70 percent of all toll calls. AT&T began directing calls away from the affected area at midmorning, and the company said that service had been restored almost to normal by 5:30 p.m. The incident was a severe embarrassment for AT&T, which cultivates an image of reliability but which a year ago suffered a virtual shutdown of its network due to errant computer software. It depicted yesterday's failure as a freak accident. "Despite the commitment that (AT&T) people make day in and day out," said AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen, "the dice roll against us." The disruption focused on lower Manhattan, where the U.S. financial industry is headquartered. "The phones went down and you could not make telephone calls out of New York City to just about anywhere," said Richard Berner, director of bond market research at the securities firm Salomon Brothers Inc. Not everyone was upset. "We've got almost no phone calls all day," said one secretary at a Manhattan company, who asked not to be identified, "which was wonderful." In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a higher threat of disruption. Jeff Held, a telecommunications specialist at the Ernst & Young accounting and consulting firm, said many long-distance companies, because of cost, have not yet put in enough alternate cable routes to handle potential problems. But he said that in view of the Newark line's importance, "It's really pretty amazing to me that that route would not be totally backed up" already. Jim Carroll, AT&T's vice president for network operations, said the disruption dragged on in part because workers had to reprogram computers and physically rearrange cables - tasks that soon will be done using new software. "If this had happened this time next year," said Carroll, "the length of this outage would have been in the range of 15 minutes." ________ This article was compiled from various sources. Credits are as follows: Joanne Kelley, "AT&T Phone Outage Paralyzes Certain Markets" Reuter, 01/04/91 Bart Ziegler, "AT&T Problem" AP Business Newswire, 01/04/91 John Burgess, "Severed Cable Disables N.Y. Markets, Airports; AT&T Accident Creates Telephone Havoc" {Washington Post}, 01/05/91 Sean E. Williams -- seanwilliams@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Sean is a new subscriber/contributor to the Digest, and I want to thank him for an excellent report. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:43:49 PST From: "John R. Covert 05-Jan-1991 1536" Subject: Cellular Systems Around the World The following chart lists the types of systems in use in each country around the world and the carriers in each country (except where there are too many to list). The system in the U.S. is the "Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS)" and is compatible with all other AMPS systems. However, compatibility does not mean that roaming is permitted. The systems in Algeria, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia are not yet operational. Algeria NMT-900 PTT American Samoa AMPS American Samoa Government (PTT) Andorra NMT-450 Telefonica of Spain Antigua AMPS Boatphone of Antigua Argentina AMPS Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM) Australia AMPS Australia Telecom (PTT) Austria NMT-450 & TACS PTV Bahamas AMPS Bahamas Telecomms Corp. Bahrain TACS Bahrain Telecoms Co. Bangladesh AMPS Hutchison Bangladesh Telecom Pvt Belgium NMT-450 PTT Bermuda AMPS Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd. Brazil AMPS Telebras (in Rio & Brasilia) British Virgin Islands AMPS CCT Boatphone Brunei AMPS Jabatan Telecoms Brunei Canada AMPS Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B) Cayman Islands AMPS Cable & Wireless Chile AMPS CTC,CIDCOM,VTR/Millicom, Telecom Chile China (PRC) TACS PTT Costa Rica AMPS Millicom and Comvik Cyprus NMT-900 Cyprus Telecom Authority Czechoslovakia NMT-450 Bell Atlantic and U.S. West Denmark NMT-450/900 PTT Dominican Republic AMPS Codetel Finland NMT-450/900 PTT France Radiocom 2000 PTT NMT-France (NMT-900 protocol on NMT-450 freqs) Gabon AMPS OPT Germany C-Netz Deutsche Bundespost Telekom Grenada AMPS Grentel Boatphone Guatemala AMPS Millicom Hong Kong AMPS & TACS Hutchison Radio TACS Hong Kong Telephone (CSL) ETACS Pacific Link Hungary NMT-450 US West with PTT TACS Contel Cellular Iceland NMT-450 PTT India TACS selection in progress Indonesia AMPS Perumtel NMT-450 Perumtel Ireland TACS-900 PTT Israel AMPS Motorola Tadiran Italy RTMS & TACS SIP Jamica AMPS JTC Japan NTT/JTACS/NTACS NTT, DDI, IDO Kenya TACS Kenya PTC Kuwait TACS/ETACS PTT Luxembourg NMT-450 PTT Malaysia NMT-450 STM TACS Celcom Malta TACS Telemalta/Racal Mexico AMPS various Morocco NMT-450 PTT Netherlands NMT-450/900 PTT Netherlands Antilles AMPS St. Maarten Boatphone New Zealand AMPS PTT Norway NMT-450/900 PTT Oman NMT-450 PTT Pakistan AMPS Paktel and Pakcom Paraguay AMPS selection in progress Peru AMPS Lima Parker Co. Philippines AMPS 1) PLDT 2) Express Portugal C-Netz PTT St. Kitts & Nevis AMPS CCT Boatphone St. Lucia AMPS St. Lucia Boatphone Saudi Arabia NMT-450 PTT Singapore AMPS & TACS The Telecommunications Authority South Africa C-Netz SAPO South Korea AMPS Korea Mobile Telecom Spain NMT-450 & TACS La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana Sweden NMT-450/900 PTT Switzerland NMT-900 PTT Taiwan AMPS PTT Thailand AMPS CAT NMT-450 TOT NMT-900 Advanced Info Service Co. Tunisia NMT-450 PTT Turkey NMT-450 PTT United Arab Emirates TACS PTT United Kingdom TACS 1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone United States AMPS various Uruguay AMPS Abiatar Venezuela AMPS CANTV Yugoslavia NMT-450 Zagreb PTT Zaire AMPS Telecel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 21:03 EDT From: Paul Coen Subject: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? I saw one of the newer AT&T commercials the other night, and something about it bothered me. I listened very carefully the next few times, and came to the same conclusion -- the spot is misleading. The basic premise is that one of "those other" phone companies calls just as the career woman is going out for a business trip. She tells them to bug off, because she wants to make sure that when she calls home to say "hi" to the kids she wants them to sound just like they're "next door." I could be mistaken, but this seems to be implying that the default carrier on your home phone is the carrier that INCOMING calls to your home are carried on -- which is wrong. It would be much more useful to have the commercial say that you should dial 10-ATT/10288 from any payphone (she's shown calling from one) to guarantee "good AT&T service." Now, the question is that is this a deliberate attempt to make people feel that if they switch, incoming calls will automatically be of poor sound quality, or is it just the failure of someone in the ad agency (or whoever else writes these things) to grasp that incoming calls aren't normally determined by the default long distance service of the party being called? I'd be inclined to believe the latter. Any thoughts on this? I could have misunderstood the commercial, but I don't think that I did. Disclaimer -- I like AT&T for the most part :-). The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s Paul Coen Academic Computer Center Drew University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 2:41:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Moderator's Note: Robert W. Lucky is executive director of the research communication science division at AT&T / Bell Labs and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He recently gave a speech before the academy, and I thought you would enjoy sharing some excerpts from that speech in this issue of the Digest. PAT] ------------------- Feeling overloaded? Many of us are, and not only from eating too much at holiday parties. Fax machines, cellular telephones, electronic mail, voice mail, telephone answering machines, phones in airplanes, pagers and other devices have us drowning in messages and phone calls. Computers bombard our lives with more information than we can absorb. Listen to the groan of people as they program their VCRs or read best-sellers like "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten," and one sees this anxiety about the stress of modern life. Complexity is a fundamental residue of the Information Age, and it is rising steadily -- in technology, business, social systems and the daily rituals of life. It is a trend that deserves more serious attention. The telephone network was easily understandable and manageable only a decade ago. Now it has slipped beyond the comprehension of any single person. The collapse of a significant portion of the AT&T network a year ago underlined the vulnerability mired in this complexity. Other large interconnected systems are found in transportation, the air traffic control system, and the military. Computers that contribute to these systems also provide tools to control them, but one of the most important problems of our time is whether we as human beings can manage such extraordinary complexity successfully. As an engineer who has helped develop the technologies of the Information Age, I believe that our species is up to the task of managing even a bewildering level of complexity. That is an optimistic view, and an experience I had recently made me painfully aware of how out of touch it may be with that of other Americans. I appeared as a guest on a television talk show about the future. After speaking glibly about a world made more pleasant by robots, high-definition television and the like, I was roundly criticized by the other guests, who insisted that the world's prospects are bleak. The environmentalist on the show was strident in his recitation of statistics on pollution. The educator spoke of the decline of literacy. The economist talked about global starvation, and the former police officer sitting beside me on the sofa warned of the inevitability of drugs and crime. When I held to my viewpoint that technology would make the world better, the others looked at me with scorn. What does a technologist know about such things? That's a reasonable question for Americans to ask of people like me, since we produced this technology and have a dubious record of predicting its impact. Few of the engineers who developed the videocassette recorder imagined that every town today would have a video retail store. The inventors of optical disks concentrated on video applications, never guessing that compact audio discs would displace vinyl records. So techology produces complexity and is unpredictable, yet engineers like myself remain optimistic about its application. As a consequence, we make progress where none is expected. Unaware that cities are a hopeless cause, we design successful urban transportation systems like BART in San Fransisco or the Washington Metro. Oblivious to the hopelessness of the educational crisis, we pursue technological aids to education. This single-minded pursuit of solutions may be hopelessly naive for the world of the future, and there's no question technology can produce bad outcomes as well as good ones. But I think most Americans would be better off if they shared our approach of viewing technology as an ally in a world of creeping complexity rather than as the enemy. Technology and simplicity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe technology increasingly will free us to focus on matters more worthy of our human intellect, producing a world in which art, religion, music and philosophy coexist with amazing technical advances. Technological products are only tools, and they can be used to make life less, as well as more stressful. The real solution to our frazzled lives lies not with rejecting technology but with harnessing it in new ways to manage information overload, quiet the beepers and calm our nerves. We need to retain faith -- not so much in technology as in our own power as human beings to make it work for ourselves. -------------- [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Lucky for sharing his thoughts with the National Academy of Engineering, and for permitting excerpts to be presented in this forum. There is very little I can add except to stress his final words: Keep having faith, keeping looking forward to the future. Telecom is not what it used to be, even a decade ago when this Digest first began publication. Who among you who are long time readers here anticipated what we see around us today? Who among you can tell us accurately about the year 2000? As Moderator of the Digest, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the changes in telecom -- and I should be keeping up. But it is hard. Keep the faith, keep looking forward to the solutions and understanding -- or would you say wisdom? -- we'll need in this new decade. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #10 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29523; 7 Jan 91 4:03 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05814; 7 Jan 91 2:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11246; 7 Jan 91 1:33 CST Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 0:35:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #11 BCC: Message-ID: <9101070035.ab12927@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jan 91 00:35:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Brett Jacobson] Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Bob Kusumoto] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Dave Levenson] Re: Wireless Phone Jacks [Dave Levenson] Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey [John Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brett Jacobson Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 6 Jan 91 07:44:44 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin (This message forwarded from petrilli@dogface.UUCP) In article <15756@accuvax.nwu.edu> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert Woodhead) writes: >Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in >order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the >traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for >local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem >lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than >the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen >lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable. I believe you miss the point that has been raised countless times in the past, which is: Do the RBOCs have the right to charge you for your use of the lines other than for voice? They are obligated to provide service, and unless the service is measured, they have no right to complain about how much goes through. Here in Texas the problem has occured several times between SWBT, and the BBS operators of the state. Basically the conclusion became: SWBT is obligated to provide X quality service, whether you need it or not, and they may NOT degrade the line below a set minimum. They also have no legal right, as common carriers, to listen to what is on the line, other than to tell if there is a signal or not. By saying that "$50 is not unreasonable," you open the door for rate increases based on the excuse "we underestimated the burdon," (which BTW, they have been bearing quite easily in the past). Once you allow the tarriff, you have opened yourself up to many rate increases at the whim of the RBOC. We are at-least semi-fortunate here in Texas that SWBT doesn't gourge us too much (except on installation charges), and the PUC doesn't let them raise rates much. Chris Petrilli petrilli@dogface.UUCP petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Kusumoto Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) Organization: University of Chicago Date: 6 Jan 91 19:45:04 GMT You'll have to forgive me since my experience with a business phone line that my parent's switched to when they started a landscaping business out in the burbs. Our local Bell is Illinois Bell. bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) writes: >1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and >residences differently? Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-) >Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business >location to pick up the phone and make a call? To receive one? In >the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up >the tab? The only differences tend to be that business get one small free listing in the Yellow Pages. Apart from this small fact and the different rates that (small) businesses pay for service, there is none. (I mention small businesses since larger ones tend to buy or lease their own PBX or cut some deal for the larger number of phones lines they use, a la IN/OUT WATS.) Businesses do have a larger variety of services that are readily available to them though, although I stress that these services tend to be for small businesses and can be pretty useless to the typical BBS. >3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force >someone to pay business rates? Are they looking at licenses which >might be required by the local authorities or registered >charitable/non-profit groups? Is the installer looking for some sign >that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up? I'm not sure what the typical requirements are, basically anything that is done for an extended period of time, running an actual business, paying taxes or filing forms as a business, etc. Hobby type activities as far as I know are not charged business rates. (I do know that local chat lines a la Diversi-Dials, were under the gun to pay business rates for all their phone lines because they were hitting subscribers for monthly fees, like $10/month.) >4) Where will it end? Will I have to pay business rates if I have a >terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work >occasionally? Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in >the paper trying to sell my car? How about if I casually start buying >and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone >number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old >Yugos? The phone company usually lets modem lines go under residental rates given that it's not being used to as a BBS to collect money (something on the order of portal or maybe chinet might have to pay business rates, prodigy probably has to pay business rates). I think the point is that you shouldn't have to be charged to access a particular phone number or service charged by that number to qualify under residental rates for BBSes. Buying and selling used and/or reconditioned cars probably doesn't fall under this catagory. A final note: IBT charges a much higher rate than normal residental/business rate for DATA QUALITY lines. Supposedly, getting DATA QUALITY lines guarentees a minimum level of quality between your connection from your place to the central office (IBT does not guarentee the wiring from the point where the wiring enters the building box to your jack any more, although they do have services where they will take care of the inside wiring for you for a small monthly charge :-). No one I know has actually gone out to do this (although there have been times where I've been tempted to do this myself). I suspect this is mostly for businesses that use dedicated lines, but then again, ISDN is also offered by IBT, which is a hell of a lot cheaper. Bob Kusumoto Internet: kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.edu Bitnet: kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.bitnet UUCP: ...!{oddjob,gargoyle}!chsun1!kusumoto ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Date: 7 Jan 91 02:53:24 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its design and development. When, as is most often the case in Western societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity. I appreciate Mr. Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic performance among students -- are insupportable. BART has complicated the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it. And educational technology -- well, just visit any school (in a "good" part of town) and see all the machinery strewn around, for purposes unknown. Technology is not without its politics, and these are anything but democratic. I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as it is of we technologists' experiments with its world. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 01:28:06 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article <15768@accuvax.nwu.edu> lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: >That is exactly right. Cellular phones are directed to increase or >decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength) >from the cell tower. This allows more cell sites in a certain area, >and thus, more potential users in that same area. This is the >principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of >airports and office buildings. A cell every few hundred yards. When we all carry personal phones around, will their be enough bandwidth capacity in the cellular system to handle all the phone traffic. How will the assumptions that underly capacity estimates hold up when more/most calls are made from/to callers static in a cell instead of moving from cell to cell ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 02:01:55 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article <15805@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more >they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by >Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal >telephone service is a desirable goal. >But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be >subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service >has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is >because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service >was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view >of business subscribers. Business places would find phone service >particularly useful if they could call residences. So let the >businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued >Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since. It seems to me that the *real* problem is that phone service is really a commodity that ought to be strictly priced based upon level and time of usage but at a much lower unit cost. Then poor people could easily afford to pay for low usage rates, BBS's could be free but the callers would *all* pay for the time consumed (NOte I am proposing that there be *no* free-calling areas, just very cheap per minute charges) and the big users would pay their fair share for heavy usage. I am obviously not an economist on phone system matters (or any other for that matter) but it seems we are paying phone companies for a lot more things than the real cost of providing phone service and maintaining the system. I am with those who say that the wires ought to be like sewers, water, etc. and be municipally owned and maintained and the supplying of dialtone be deregulated and/or auctioned to the lowest *qualified* bidder within an area. >What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service? I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting Date: 6 Jan 91 18:46:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15797@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes > in while your connected elsewhere? > [Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the > Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via > call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, > does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your > phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you > of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter > how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on > those calls, or not? PAT] I can answer two of the three questions raised here: 1. No Caller*Id information is presented on a non-ringing call, such as one that arrives via call waiting. 2. No Caller*ID information is presented with the 'single-spurt' ring that announces a forwarded call. I don't yet know the answer to the remaining question, about the call-waiting call that is subsequently allowed to ring after the previous call in progress is disconnected. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jacks Date: 6 Jan 91 20:46:49 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15796@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone > jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know > anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used > with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much > noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ? Jeff identifies some valid concerns about these devices. I would like to add another: security. For some years, there has been home intercom and lighting-control equipment on the market that uses low-level RF to send audio or signaling information over your power lines. The RF signal used by these devices is conducted primarily by the power wire. There is also some radiation of this signal into the air. A nearby receiver, even if not connected directly to the power line, can probably intercept the information. A nearby transmitter, perhaps part of another, similar, system can radiate into the power line, and thereby interfere with the system. The RF is mostly blocked by the step-down transformer that feeds your house. If there are several houses fed from the same transformer (as is usually the case) these systems can easily communicate between these nearby houses. For this reason, there are a dozen or so channels available. Neighbors must reach an agreement on who uses which channels. In a large appartment building, there is typically a large transformer feeding the entire building. There are probably more appartments on each phase of the local power than there are available channels. The likelyhood of interference, or of deliberate eaves-dropping, is very high. I would recommend against using RF unless it is truly necessary, and then I would recommend caution in what you transmit! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 6 Jan 91 18:40:41 EST (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15812@accuvax.nwu.edu> appears: >I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain >long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB >was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT). NJ Bell has a waiver to offer long distance service between northeastern NJ and New York city, and between the Camden area and Philadelphia. NY Tel and Bell of PA have matching waivers the other way. I gather this is because at the time of the divestiture the phone networks in those area were too heavily intertwined to allow separation of local BOC and LD AT&T lines in time for LD service to be handled the normal way. Since then NJ Bell has realized that they can make money from those two busy traffic corridors and has heavily promoted the service, particularly to businesses where an appropriately programmed PBX can insert the 10NJB automatically on the calls that NJB can handle. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #11 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29729; 7 Jan 91 4:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05814; 7 Jan 91 2:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11246; 7 Jan 91 1:33 CST Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 1:24:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #12 BCC: Message-ID: <9101070124.ab14937@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What are Secure Lines? [Floyd Davidson] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Roy Smith] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Floyd Davidson] Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? [Carl Wright] Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael Perka] Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Charles Hawkins Mingo] Interoffice Signalling [Bill Cerny] Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome] Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info [David Leibold] Singapore Goes Pay per Call [David Leibold] Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:04:49 GMT In article <15758@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: >Joe Broniszewski queries: >> In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure >> line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business >> (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure >> lines. My questions: >> 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line >> and a non-secure line? >There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they >use special telephones, not special telephone lines. End-to-end encryption makes a "secure" line. Such beasties are available to the military and other defense agencies. The book gave no indication that such was available to Cliff or that he was using one. He may or may not have been. >> 2. Are calls routed differently? >They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type >system that all the Federal agencies have access to. FTS can be used >to call POTS or other FTS phones. If it is a military agency, they >may use a network called AUTOVON. They could also be routed in the >usual way that we civilians have our calls routed. Basically all >they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that. Secure cellular phones >are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from >his golf cart up in Maine? My bet is that one is definitely encrypted. >Answer to 4: >FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the >federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone >and data traffic. It is likely that the spooks have encryption equipment on T streams between them and whatever toll switch they connect to. From that point on it definitely is not a "secure" line, but... Any FTS-2000 satellite link is encrypted. Most autovon satellite links are encrypted. Chances are fairly good that a normal connection that you make calling them could be monitored, chances are fairly poor that a call they make to you could be monitored. At least by accident. The lines are not "secure", just a bit safer. They keep the amatuer spooks out of it, but not the pro's. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 16:36:29 GMT In article <15817@accuvax.nwu.edu> seanwilliams@attmail.com writes: > An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed operators in the New > York area to provide customers with access codes to its long-distance > competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT. Ignoring for the moment the political problems involved, how difficult would it be to implement automatic load-shedding without having to have customers manually dial a different 10xxx code? It seems that all that would be needed is for the AT&T computers to tell the local telcos' computers "OK, until further notice, take all [or half, or whatever fraction is appropriate] of the calls you would normally route to us because we're the default dial-1 long distance carrier, and send them to Sprint or MCI instead". There would be some details to work out with the billing, but that's not really a technical issue. Callers might get billed directly by the alternate carriers, or the carriers might bill AT&T under some sort of treaty; AT&T could then bill the customer normally, and they might never known what had happened (or, presumably, care). Assuming this could all be made to work (at worst, it's probably a Simple Matter Of Programming), would it be a good idea? Would the overall integretity of the long distance network be improved by this, or would the greater coupling between the various pieces generate the possibility of having a inter-carrier meltdown, making things worse? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:52:14 GMT In article <15807@accuvax.nwu.edu> USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu writes: >It is ridiculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a >non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a >substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do >not make a profit. >Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of >the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid >staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra >phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a >donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are >[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' >phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define >what is a 'business' and what is not. >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and 1) is a big subject that I'll not debate... 2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license is a business. The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any network that I know of. If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch reports were off-normal. Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on a given day! BBS's on the other hand generate revenue. Long distance calls. Just the same as teenagers and calls to mom. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a business-related activity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 04:42:23 GMT Re: prefix changes, the BellSouth Open Network Architecture Outlook newsletter says the following: "Estimates were that all available NPA codes would be in use by 1995. However, the economic cruch of the 1980's and the current seven to nine percent growth in telephone number usage moved that date up. As a result, Bellcore requires any area code running short of numbers to convert to Interchangeable Central Office Codes (ICOC). Under this plan, converted NPAs may use "0" and "1" as the middle digit of central office codes (the first three numbers of the seven digit phone number). This conversion creates 152 new central office codes, just over a million phone numbers per area code, and extends the life of the existing area codes." They went on to say that Georgia converted to ICOC in October 1989, North Carolina in March 1990, and Alabama should be converted by January 1991. Interested parties should also see the article in {Telephony} dated 12/24/90, page 11 titled "North America Faces Number Crunch". It also discusses how Mexico is losing its NPAs. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:45:25 PST From: Michael_Perka@next.com Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting Organization: NeXT Computer, Inc. In article <15797@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the >Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via >call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, >does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your >phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you >of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter >how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on >those calls, or not? PAT] The interactions of the Calling Number Delivery (CND) CLASS service with other services such as Custom Calling are noted in the Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000031, "CLASS Feature: Calling Number Delivery". Under section 3.8, Interactions: "A. Call Waiting CND data should not be transmitted duing of after a Call Waiting (CW) tone. Similarly, CND data should not be transmitted during or after any switchhook flashes that may occur in response to the CW tone. Also, CND should not occur during ringback that results from the customer going on-hook in response to a CW tone." Subsections B through J describe interactions with Multiparty Lines, Three-Way Calling, various types of call forwarding, Distinctive Ringing, Auto Callback/Recall, and Calling Number Delivery Blocking. Ordering info for this TR has already appeared in TELECOM Digest. Mike ------------------------------ From: Charles Hawkins Mingo Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: 7 Jan 91 05:09:09 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article <15775@> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to >Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak >being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote >says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where >is that? Rest assured that very few Canadians would know where "Atlin, Canada" is (especially since a place-name is usually given with the province, not the country). A quick check reveals that Atlin is a small mining town in the extreme NW corner of British Columbia, near the Yukon border. It's over a hundred miles NNE of Juneau, Alaska, so you can imagine what the climate is like. I'm not sure why Atlin is singled out thus; however, I do know that facilities to remote company towns (which Atlin appears to be) are often provided by the company running the operation, and not the usual LD provider (which is Telecom Canada). Thus, even if AT&T has a deal with Telecom Canada, it may have to pay extra to whomever owns the lines to Atlin. (I've also heard that that section of BC (behind the Alaskan panhandle) sometimes gets phone service from Alaska, as opposed to southern BC.) I'll bet that very few US residents have ever called Atlin, and that there's some obscure legal reason why AT&T felt compelled to use the footnote (after all, why not just tell us what the rate to Atlin is, instead of suggesting it might be different?) Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 02:22:36 GMT In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 19:07:57 GMT Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when dialing? Thanks! Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones generated any frequencies or tones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:08:16 EST With the talk about TAP, there was mention of a BBS they had; could someone please e-mail the BBS number to djcl@contact.uucp? In fact, it would be interesting to compile a list of BBS numbers that have telecom-related sections. There is a BBS operated by Jim Deputy for telecom folks, plus MCI's Telecom Consultant BBS, Ed Hopper's BBS (with Digest access at least). Mail all numbers to djcl@contact.uucp and I'll send a summary along to the Digest in due time. ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Singapore Goes Pay per Call Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:10:42 EST A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there. I will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest readers have some more info on this themselves. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 13:17:00 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Reply-to: danj1@ihlpa.att.com Here is something I posted in chi.general. Being ever so helpful, and to make sure my golden keystrokes get maximum bong-for-the-buck, I am posting it to TELECOM Digest, even though this might have been blabbed about very recently. "Why am I pestering you New Jersey people, etc. with this?" Because you might be able to do something similar with your local phone company to prevent one day perhaps getting "slammed" from e.g., AT&T to some other leading brand [---not that it ever happened to me much.] > On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void!bond@uunet.UU.NET (Allan > Bond) said via e-mail: >I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company >form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone >company switched. "Call your service representative for yours." Allan> What is this? Is Illinois Bell switching people's long Allan> distance carriers at random? Please provide a brief background Allan> why I might want such a form. Well, there's the practice of "slamming" (often mentioned in newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom) where, say, Sprint might out of the blue tell Illinois Bell that you want Sprint for your long distance carrier, and next month you start getting bills from Sprint instead of say, AT&T, which you had previously selected. These forms are a way to protect yourself from this shady practice. Further questions on slamming in general you probably want to direct to newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. By the way, I tried to get a whole ream of these forms for my pals at work (we all chose AT&T, and getting an employee discount probably being a significant factor, we don't want to be "slammed"), but I was informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell service representative individually. By the way 1-700-555-4141 is the number to dial to see who's your current long distance carrier. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708-979-6364 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #12 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25080; 8 Jan 91 4:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12197; 8 Jan 91 2:48 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08244; 8 Jan 91 1:44 CST Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 1:30:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #13 BCC: Message-ID: <9101080130.ab07585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:30:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Interoffice Signalling [John Higdon] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Dave Levenson] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Tom Gray] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Tom Gray] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Rolf Meier] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Dave Levenson] Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome] Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Steve Warner] Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Bob Sherman] Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 0:36:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning, Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago. The cable went out about 9:00 AM CST, and service stayed out all morning. Apparently crews were close at hand (I think it was a Sprint crew which caused the problem, but they aren't saying), and restoration got underway almost immediatly. By about 12:30 PM CST service had been mostly restored. AT&T seemed to handle much of the overflow without difficulty. For over three hours, Sprint was totally silent here: calls to double zero got fast re-order tone, and one plus calls were intercepted after the 1-NPA-XXX had been dialed and met with dead silence. Illinois Bell and Centel service representatives and operators /repair clerks were instructed to advise complainers of the problem and to use 10xxx routing instead through 'some other' carrier. If anyone gets more specifics, please send them along. Can you imagine the irony of someone who at the end of last week, angry with AT&T about their trouble decided to switch to Sprint because they were 'more reliable' :). As AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said last week, "we all roll the dice and have bad days from time to time." The Digest reader who suggested there ought to be a 'treaty' between LD carriers and automatic, transparent re-routing in times of emergencies spoke wisely. The sooner something like that is implemented, the better off we will be. Another reader, in a letter to be published soon points out that not all offices are equipped to do that sort of thing easily, but it should be SOP (standard operating practice) in offices thus equipped. Let's not wait until all of the USA is on ESS before we implement it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 03:00:42 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: > In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected > by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when > completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, > inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) It varies, but usually works out like this: KP + Prefix code (one digit) + Number (four digits) + ST for a total of seven tones. Omission of the prefix code would be interpreted to mean the "0" prefix; possibly the first CG0 or MG0 prefix in the office. Since the stream is bracketed by KP/ST, variable length is easy. > Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Absolutely. I remember many DID installations long before ESS had any significant penetration. The "CHUNK-KA-TUNK" when connected into the end office was unmistakable. Decades ago, the San Jose city offices used DID on a very crossbar switch. The first digital pagers were served via DID on crossbar here. There were some large Silly Valley firms who also made use of DID long before their COs were equipped with stored program equipment. Mind you, virtually all DID in those days was rotary signaling from the CO to the premise switch. In fact, when I put in an ITT 3100 for a customer that had DID service, Pac*Bell tried to talk me out of using DTMF. "Everyone uses rotary signaling." That was in 1984. Now DTMF is quite common. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 13:02:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: > In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected > by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when > completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, > inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) Anywhere from four to ten digits are sent between central offices as described. In most cases, five digits are sent. Because most central offices serve more than one prefix, but seldom more than ten, it is customary to send a single-digit prefix-index followed by the last four-digits of the called number. > Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Some #5 crossbar switches were, and indeed still are, capable of providing DID service. They generate dial-pulse signaling toward the customer equipment, unlike some of the more recent switch designs which can send DTMF over such trunks. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 17:09:45 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) The answer is that as many digits are tranmitted as are requred to do the routing in the distant office. The number of digits would or could be different on different trunks between the same offices or for different calls on the same trunk. Normal subscriber calls could transmit different numbers digits than maintenance connections on the same trunks. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 7 Jan 1991 10:12:36 GMT In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) >Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? I can't answer the xbar question. Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only the last four digits. But also it is unlikely that there would be two switches and only one NPA. With digital switching it can be arranged in almost any manner that will uniquely identify the correct routing. Usually the minimum number of digits are sent (but not less than four). There are times when for some oddball reason more than the minimum required are sent. Usually that is either future planning, or bad planning. The same is true of toll trunks to end offices. Inter-toll trunking almost always requires all digits to be passed. With mechanical switches there were other considerations because the switch may not have been configured to handle some given set of numbers. Strange things could happen. Before digital switches made it impossible there was such a quirk here in the Fairbanks area. The Fairbanks telco (45x), the North Pole (488), and the Eielson AFB telco all had EAS (Extended Area Service) trunks between each other. But there was a grand total of only six from Eielson to North Pole (one way trunks, six went the other direction too). From Eielson AFB if you dialed 488-nnnn you most likely got an all trunks are busy signal. But for those who knew about it (almost everyone), you dialed 458-nnnn instead. It went 26 miles up the road to Fairbanks, grabbed a trunk to 488 land, and went ten miles back down the same road to North Pole. It worked because the Eielson switch stripped the first digit, selected N.P. or FBK for a second digit of 8 or 5, and sent the last five digits down the line. The Fairbanks switch looked at the first of those five digits and selected either itself (a 6), the other Fairbanks switch (a 2), or an 8 would send it to North Pole. For some reason they did absorb a 7, so it could never be routed back to Eielson (372 and 377). Digital switching came in '82 and it became almost impossible to call between North Pole and Eielson until more trunks were in place. And now the Fairbanks telco is using 458 for one of their remotes. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:17:06 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu> tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: >Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when >dialing? The pulse frequency is nominally 10pps (in North America). Most switches will accomodate frequencies from 7 to 12pps. The nominal make/break ration is 60/40. Most swtches will accomodate make breaks from 80/20 to 20/80. Outside of North America the nominal pulse rates vary from country to country but is most commonly 10pps with a 66/34 make/break. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:46:11 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu> tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: >Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when >dialing? Dial pulses can be anywhere from 8 to 12 pulses per second and still be recognized. Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps. Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway? Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 12:58:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: > Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when > dialing? ... > [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones > generated any frequencies or tones. PAT] The last time I checked, pulse-dial phones generate a 'frequency' of approximately 10 Hz. (Ten dial-pulses per second.) Probably a bit low to be called a 'tone' but definitely a repetitive event, and that means that it has a frequency! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:36:06 GMT Thanks to those who answered my last question. Unfortunately, I confused the two modes !!! I am looking for the frequencies used in tone mode phones. I know each key generates two frequencies more or less based on C D and E music notes, but I would like something a little bit more precise. Thanks again !!! Eric THOLOME holome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:02:59 PST From: Steve Warner Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry >Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90 >bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service. However, I'm >still paying it. Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the >mill" or was abandoned? My January, 1991 bill for two of my lines has an insert which says that the TT charge will be dropped as of sometime in Feb, 1991. They will also drop the installation charge for such service. They siad that recovery of part of the lost revenue will come in the form of a decrease in one of the credits now being received on the bill. Steve Warner - Fremont, CA, USA etc... replies to: sun!indetech!stables!sw (forget what the header says) ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 08:25:52 GMT >[Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service >is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep. >I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you? PAT] The service being offered on CIS as PHONEFILE is a much watered down version of the Metromail service to which it is gatewayed.. If you think the surcharge is a bit steep, try it with a direct account :-).. they demand a $1,000 per month minimum billing for the full service and each search costs between .45 & somewhere around $2.. When you figure how many searches you could do in an hour on CIS, you could come out way ahead even though most of the power on the real system is not available on the CIS front end.. I know of other systems that also gateway to the Metromail system, and one of them charges between $25-45 PER search hit.. You will NOT find any business addresses or phone numbers in the file as it consists only of residential information. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule, but once again, the watered down front end at CI$ does not allow you to access them. So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly.. The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit zip codes etc. At last claim the database contained about 64 million residential phone numbers, 80 million addresses, and around 114 million names. They make no claims about having unlisted phone numbers, even though they may well still have your name and address along with a phone # of 000-000-0000. However once in a while, an unlisted phone can sneak it's way into the file without them knowing it is unlisted. They use many sources to collect the information, and try to keep it current. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:15:50 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls This recent talk about sent-paid coin calls got me thinking about rates. I did a little investigation, and here's what I found. For a call from 415-841 to 206-324, the initial rate for direct dial from home was $.14 (over AT&T, evening rate). AT&T Calling Card was $.94, but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit risk. I'm sure that Pacific Bell charges a certain amount for the coin collection services, but this seems outlandish. Anyone know why it's like this? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #13 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20023; 9 Jan 91 2:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04659; 9 Jan 91 0:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07871; 8 Jan 91 23:54 CST Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #14 BCC: Message-ID: <9101082332.ab31883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Charles Buckley] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Ptasnik] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Cornutt] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [William R. Pearson] Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Mike Riddle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:53:25 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates > Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows > how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think > about what they do to modemers. > Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY > [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' > phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define > what is a 'business' and what is not. . . . No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it. This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which call it. These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit, since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent calling. I think Michigan Bell probably has a case, but they only look like bullies when they try to solve their money problems by shaking down the lonely sysop. They should try instead for the introduction of universal measured rate service. This has been extremely unpopular in the past, because the rates proposed each time it's been tried have been quite high. The concept itself is a good one. I wouldn't mind paying, $.30-$.40/hour for a non-stop local call, especially if my subscription were only $3.00/month. I don't believe this will work - unmeasured service is a sacred cow in too many places. Failing that, making special class of 976 number available to the BBS sysops, perhaps on a pro bono basis, which charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing this hole in the rate structure without substantially revising it, give the LEC their due, and not unduly burden callers (it's certainly cheaper than Compu$urcharge). It would also take the phone company and BBS sysops out of their current adversarial relationship, and make them "partners in fostering computer literacy" (the final selection of the warm fuzzy corp-speak phrase I leave to the minions). In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) charge, which means that if no-one calls the BBS some month, the sysop has to pay lots (the price of unpopularity!). Anyone who deals in `sin numbers' want to comment if and under what conditions a subscriber can break even at such rates? For sure, there are going to be sysops who rightly fear for the damage to their reputation when *hundreds* jump to the typical conclusion that it's just *got* to be a porno BBS (and be usuriously expensive to call) since it has a 976 number ;'>. And, maybe the sysops only wanted to raise hell anyway ... [Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves. We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal. Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans, paying $20-30 per month! The local Diversi-dial boards were linking up with each other all over northern Illinois and staying connected for the entire weekend, etc. Telco finally said enough already ... the abusers ruined unlimited local calling for everyone. When the local area 'free calling plans' were eliminated here and people started paying only for they actually used, almost everyone priased the new plan. And who raised the biggest stink about the new plan? Why, the modem users and BBS sysops, of course! They'd have to actually start paying for those several hours at a time on line to the chat systems where they had previously stayed logged in while they went out to eat, etc. What previously cost $20-30 per month started costing $150 per month! PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 9:37:02 PDT floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. I don't think it's quite that simple. We have a licensed and incorporated day care in our home. We have two hunting lines. We do not pay business rates, nor do I think we should. The two lines are more a convenience for our evening modem use. We do not want to advertise in the business section of the white pages, or in the yellow pages. The volume of calls generated by the business is trivial. The standard I have most often heard is the standard of zoning. Commercial zoning, business rates. Residential zoning, res rates. If you have a business in your home, and want to advertise in the phone books, business rates. Even this last is becoming more muddy with the advent of non-telco yellow pages. They will generally accept an ad from anyone old enought to write a check, and don't really care what kind of lines you have. >One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or >require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is >not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather >dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects >network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single >digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any >network that I know of. In an residential neighborhood, usage patterns are quite a bit different. I agree that most board usage is probably evening/night usage. A cluster of boards in a residential neighborhood could well have an impact on the way a CO switch is designed, and the hardware it requires. It is certainly a usage intensive service, using much more of the CO's availability than a standard res customer. When I asked telqi representatives why they charge business more, and why they used to charge PBX users more than Key System users, they always said it was a question of system usage. The more you use a line, the more you pay for it. A 16 line BBS probably does more traffic in an evening than 150 residential customers. Don't get me wrong, I like BBS's and hope that they continue to get low rates. Most CO's are mixed commercial and residential, and the occasional BBS probably doesn't have an impact. I just think that the telqi have a justifiable position. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 15:49:34 EST From: USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates In my post made 1/4/91, Pat replies: > If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to > access it and gain information from it, why is he different than > Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money > to access their system and gain information from them? People who run a BBS as a hobby don't charge a fee for the service. As I stated before, some sysops ask for small donations. These donations are not mandatory, but you get some extra goodie if you do [like access to the game room, or extended prime-time access]. But I fail to see how this would indicate a business. However, a BBS that charges a mandatory fee for access in another creature entirely, and should be treated as such [and I won't discuss that particular can of worms here :) ] I think that hobbyist BBSs are special. They're a place to talk about different subjects, participate in friendly chats, argue about contro- versial issues, down/upload files, and meet people in an atmosphere where what you say, not who you are, is important. It doesn't matter who you are, if you are handicapped, a minority, or whatever. Most people do not have access to the Internet/Bitnet/Usenet, and Compu$erve and GEnie are only good for some things, therefore many people rely on the local BBS. To quote Mike Riddle's paper, BBSs are now the local equivalent of the political pamphlet of the 1700s and are just as important. A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of dedication, both financial and personal. So why should sysops have to take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the sysop's expense? If a BBS had to be classified as a business, who would run one? We'd end up with the lowest common denominator, just like television and even more boring. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York [Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory (312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them pay? Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people? PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Cornutt Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: MSFC Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 19:27:04 GMT floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: [about whether a BBS qualifies as a business, and who makes the determination...] >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. There is a government agency who is: the IRS. If you wanted to deduct the costs of your BBS as a business expense, you would have to meet some pretty stringent tests. You would need, for example, a computer, modem, phone line, and room in your house devoted *exclusively* to the BBS, and you would need extensive documentation of your expenses and labor. Further, there is a nasty thing called the "three years out of five" test that home businesses are subjected to. Just charging for access isn't enough; you have to demonstrate that you have turned a profit at least three out of the last five years, or the IRS will declare your business to be a hobby, and disallow all deductions resulting from it. What's the point? The point is that there is no way that any home- operated BBS would ever meet the IRS tests for a legitimate businees (for-profit or not). So, in a rational world, there is no way that a BBS could ever be charged business rates. Whether such an argument would cut any ice with a PUC or not, I don't know. Has anyone ever tried such an argument? >[Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have >been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to >make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. >Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these >instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a >business-related activity. PAT] Having an office at home is not the same thing as running a business, according to the IRS. It is damn near impossible to deduct a home office, no matter how legitimately it may be related to your job. Again, whether this would mean anything to a PUC, I can't say. David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." [Moderator's Note: But again, neither would the dial-prayer / phone counselors / recorded annnouncement givers of the world qualify under the 'three out of five' rule. They pay business rates. Either there should be a not-for-profit rate with telco *or* the BBS operators should bite the bullet and pay the same as others of their kind. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:38:39 GMT Re: Business licenses for modems I do programming and program distribution from my home, as well as have a full-time job. Every year I get a form letter from my local government, suggesting that since I have taken a business expense deduction on my state taxes, I should get a business license. Every year I explain that I do no business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and, in any case, do almost no business with non-tax exempt institutions. I am then told that I don't really need a business license, since I will not be generating sales tax revenue. Here in Charlottesville, at least, a business license is something you need to collect sales tax. I wonder if the BBS might be well served by getting something in writing from the local government stating that they do not need a business license, because they are not conducting a business. On the other hand, perhaps they do need one, because they are. Bill Pearson ------------------------------ Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs From: Ed Hopper Date: Sun, 06 Jan 91 21:53:49 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: > As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the > lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the > purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, > posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. > In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues > presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the > relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. ... > Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and > fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room > with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. Please note that I was forwarding a message from Bruce Wilson. *I* did *NOT* compose the message (with the exception of my personal comments at the end). I agree that there is a fairly common chicken-little phenomenom in these cases. Amateur lawyering abounds and lapses in logic are common. The docket in Texas is 8387. We expect a final hearing and settlement in a few days at which time I will post a summary of the activity. That post will also more clearly discuss the issues that I briefly touched upon in the testimony I gave in the PUC hearing. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jan 91 19:35:14 PDT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: mike.riddle%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu In a previous post, Mr. Winslade discusses the allegations recently that reclassification of BBSes as "businesses" for ratemaking purposes would result in higher long distance charges as "bovine doo-doo." Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated line access charges" between residences and businesses? I may be wrong, but thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned but poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses got hit harder. Anyone know? Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #14 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21015; 9 Jan 91 3:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29004; 9 Jan 91 2:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04659; 9 Jan 91 0:58 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 0:44:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #15 BCC: Message-ID: <9101090044.ab06629@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:44:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Russ Kepler] Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account [Alan Laird] Cellular Phone and Service Advice Needed [Scott R. Myers] Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Steve Forrette] Roaming in the High Desert [Steve Forrette] New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette] Year of the Free Cellular Phone? [Gary D. Archer] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Joe Francis] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Peter Hayward] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Kepler Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:11:16 GMT Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM In article <15767@accuvax.nwu.edu> uswnvg!dfpedro@uunet.uu.net (Donn Pedro) writes: >In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >:How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 >:miles from the nearest cell? OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest? I wouldn't propose it unless I thought I had a good chance at winning. In Albuquerque we have a cellular service and a mountain. Said mountain is about 5000' above the city, a in view of a lot of the surrounding area. I can hit the Albuquerque cell from as far west as Grants (90 mi), north to Los Alamos (70 mi), south to almost Socorro (about 80 mi), and east for Santa Rosa (70 mi, but not good coverage). This is with good signal quality. I'm waiting to see what happens when the new service in Santa Fe goes in this year - will my system decide to roam or will it stay in a home cell? I'll check it out when the new system is up. Russ Kepler - Basis Int'l SNAIL: 5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ PHONE: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ From: Alan Laird Subject: Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account Date: 7 Jan 91 17:22:33 GMT Reply-To: Alan Laird Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland. With my most recent cellular phone bill from Nationwide Cellular Telephones I received an extra form saying that from January they would be introducing a credit limit of 100 pounds per phone line. The form was very brief and was so badly worded that it was possible to interpret it that they were giving a 100 pound credit limit like a credit card but I would imagine the correct interpretation is that they'll let you run your bill up to no more than 100 pounds and then deny you any further service until you give them some money. I don't use my phone terribly much but I have been over 100 pounds in one month and I certainly wouldn't want to be in the position of not being able to use it just because it was near the end of the month and my outstanding bill was too high. NCT already get paid by direct debit from my bank account and they threaten that they will disconnect you immediately on non-payment without so much as a reminder, so I don't imagine they have much of a problem collecting their revenue at the moment. What I want to know is if there are any other UK (or elsewhere for that matter) airtime providers who also operate credit limits ? Are NCT likely to be in violation of my airtime contract by doing this ? I'll dig it out myself tonight and have a look. The form did offer to let you increase your credit limit if you thought that 100 pounds was not sufficient. I'm going to return it asking for a rediculous limit of say 5000 per month and see what they say. Alan I M Laird, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. aiml@uk.ac.strath.cs, 041 552 4400 x3081, 0836 320786 ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Celluar Phone and Service Advice Needed Date: 8 Jan 91 04:25:17 GMT Organization: Rutgers University I have a mission to find a good inexpensive mobile cellular phone and a transportable cellular phone for my company. Along with that I also would appreciate any comments about the local cellular services (NJ-NY-PA areas). Features I would like are outlined below: Hands Free (Very Important) Dual NAM (Not so important but nice) Phone number storage Backlit display Signal Strength meter (Like something more than just "Weak Signal") Lock out with 911 exception (Not so important but nice) Call Timer (per call and total would be nice) DTMF (Very Important) I may have missed a few but the key things above are the hands free and the DTMF. On the transportable I would like a full three watts with switchable power selection. Also a hands free option would be great. I'd also like comments specifically on the phones that Radio-Shack offers. CT-102 Mobile Cellular CT-1033 Transportable Cellular I have no real good reason for being interested in them and I have looked at many others but they are cheap the do come with the Radio-Shack Extended Service Plan Option but who knows. Let me know what you think out there in Netland. Thanx in advance. BTW -- My budget is $300 for the Mobil and $500 for the Transportable. Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)352-4162 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07208 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:33:38 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports This is something that has always bothered me. Let's say that I'm roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point the secondary dialtone is provided. Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? US Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system, overcoming any technical or legal hurdles. You enter the called number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place. I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of roamers from other systems. But whatever happened to just wanting to do it right for the sake of it? It seems that especially cellular carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime revenues. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:34:23 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Roaming in the High Desert Over New Year's, I had the opportunity to take a road trip from the Bay Area to Tucson to see the Copper Bowl (Go bears!), and thus got a lot of first-hand experience in roaming. The coverage of Cellular One of Los Angeles is amazing. Going south, tt starts at the first hill of the Grapevine coming down I-5, and was present all the way along I-10 to the Arizona boarder. There was a brief area of "no service" just east of Indio, but it didn't last long. For those of you not familiar with the area, I-10 going towards AZ is very much a desert and sparsely populated. Yet, service worked like a champ. Coming back through Las Vegas down I-15, LA service started just into CA along I-15, and continued along SR 58 until I we hit the Bakersfield system. I, being a telecom nerd, was on the lookout for cell sites, and sure enough, every few miles or so, especially on top of the passes near the highway, you could see the cell sites. I believe that these are NOT part of the new Rural Service Area plan. These are to be separate systems in rural areas, right? Whereas these cells along I-10 and I-15 are part of the very-urban Los Angeles system. I guess it's just lucrative enough to install these to serivce LA people on the way to somewhere. There's now continuous service on I-5 from Redding to the Mexican border (passing through several systems), the better part of which is quite rural indeed. Based on my travels through Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana, the California coverage is quite amazing. There must be an awful number of people just on the way to somewhere but in the middle of nowhere here to justify the cost. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:35:42 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: New Roaming System for A Carriers There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?). When you are outside of your local area and registered in another, your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in, the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it. This is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not as neat as the call just going through by itself. Based on my experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details: - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive a call in a foreign system in order to activate it. - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment. All they need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network. When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are. - The referral resets at midnight, when you roam into another system, or when you return home. - In California or Nevada, if you are roaming into another city hooked into the Super Cellular System, your calls find you automatically anyway, so this new system doesn't apply. - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco), in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or no-answer transfer you have enabled. Cellular One admitted that this was indeed a bug (and not a "feature" as I had expected them to say!), and is working to fix it. - Some systems (speficially Cellular One of Seattle) appear to only do the MIN/ESN verification every other day. So, the second day in a row that you're roaming there, it figures that it doesn't need to verify, since after all you were valid just yesterday. But, the home system has reset at midnight, so the referrals stop. Note that I've not been able to confirm this, but my own experience would imply this "every other day" configuration. - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will: "privacy." Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off (except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 14:26:36 PST From: "Gary D. Archer" Subject: Year of the Free Cellular Phone? Several months ago our esteemed Moderator mentioned getting a transportable for $99. Here is my story of getting one today for $0.00. As many of you know, CA has a law that forbids manditory cellular service activation being packaged with phones, and the entire package being sold at "low" prices. This has resulted in CA phones either being a bargain (ie some Radio Shack phones will sell for the same price in CA as outside, but outside CA you must sign up for cellular service) or for the same phone being "overpriced". I am a first time cellular buyer. My brother has a Techno-phone MC915A three watt transportable that I really liked ... imagine my shock when I found that in CA it would cost me between $300-$499 depending on stores... then I'd have to pay $25 to have the phone activated, plus monthly, plus airtime ... all for the privilege to not be locked into a six month contract. Talking to my brother it turned out he bought the phone (w/ six month contract) for $25.00 plus a $25 programming in Houston. So I had him buy me one when he returned. This time it was FREE (but I had to pay a $25 charge). Also, GTE will automatically give me a 408 a/c number if I wish, but I'd have to have the phone reprogrammed out here. I'd still remain under their 6month contract, but would be paying the local peak/off-peak rates and wouldn't have to auto-roam every night. Now, It's a lot to ask for but is it possible for me to program this phone myself, and if so, what information do I need from GTE to accomplish this? The form I got with my phone lists something called ESN (equipment serial no?) and CSA. Is this the stuff that is changed when the phone is re-programmed? Thanks, Gary [Moderator's Note: The Technophone MC915A is easy to program. It has a dual NAM, meaning you can have two different numbers (carriers) assigned for 'home' if desired. Here is the programming sequence to use: 1) Press CLR three times in rapid succession. 2) Press # 000000 # # 953739 # STO 29 STO STO 3) Press on/off to power down the phone. 4) Press on/off to power up the phone. 5) Display will ask "Which NAM?" (Press 1 or 2 followed by STO) 6) Display will ask "System ID?" (Example 00022 for NY Nynex, then *) 7) Display will read 888-888-8888. (Enter 10 digit phone number, then *) 8) Display will ask "O/Load Class?" (Enter two digit code, then *) 9) Display will ask "Grp ID?" (Enter two digit code, then *) 10) Display will ask "EXp?" (Enter Extended Address Bit 0/1, *) 11) Display will ask "IPCH?" (Enter Paging Channel 333/334, then *) 12) Display will ask "System ID?" (Enter three letters for city name) Example: To store "NYC" press 6 key two times, and display will show 'N'. Press # to step to next letter. Press 9 key three times to get 'Y'. Press # to step to the final letter. Press 2 key three times to get 'C'. Press the # key to end. Then, press the * key once again. 13) Display will ask "Save NAM?" (SEND = save ; END = disgard) To exit NAM programming, press the END key. This will save the changes and power down the unit. I hope this helps you out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Francis Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 00:40:21 GMT I find slamming annoying and deceitful. How often does this happen? This happened to me in Boston under New England Tel. I was using AT&T and suddenly received an MCI bill. I refused to pay it and told them to switch back to AT&T. Does anyone know more about the frequency of this practice (or anything else about it, for that matter)? [Moderator's Note: Do we? DO WE ??? My goodness, wake up and read the Digest with your coffee each morning! PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Peter B. Hayward" Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:12:00 GMT In article <15844@accuvax.nwu.edu> danj1@ihlpa.att.com writes: >> On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void!bond@uunet.UU.NET (Allan >> Bond) said via e-mail: >>I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company >>form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone >>company switched. "Call your service representative for yours." >I was informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell >service representative individually. Strange. I just called my Illinois Bell service rep and neither he nor his supervisor had heard of such. The alternative he offered me was to have a password placed on my account so only people knowing the password could initiate changes. Peter B. Hayward WX9T University of Chicago Computing Organizations [Moderator's Note: All business office reps are created equal, but some are more equal than others. That's why your's had not heard of the form yet, I imagine. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #15 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13020; 10 Jan 91 0:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04586; 9 Jan 91 23:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29610; 9 Jan 91 22:10 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #16 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092120.ab03436@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People [John Higdon] Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Adam Gorman] Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives! [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Hans Mulder] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Marvin Sirbu] Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Ed Hopper] Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? [Jim Breen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People Date: 7 Jan 91 02:41:29 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Jeff Sicherman writes: > I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying > calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features > you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means > does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a > utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a > price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the > regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal. So only the "poor" are entitled to live outside of means? This sounds an awful lot like taxation and pricing to effect social change. Whenever you start messing around with market pricing, you open a complex can of worms that requires rules upon regulations to correct the previous "injustice". So how would you have telephone pricing? The same phone line might cost anywhere from "free" to $100 per month based upon the person's ability to pay? Why is this fair? Yes, a telephone is a current-day necessity. But one measured phone line is $4.45 per month in CA (plus tax). This is hardly a crippling amount to anyone with a roof over his head. (The "homeless" don't have telephones that I'm aware of.) Why must we create a whole new rate structure to shave a couple of bucks off of an already insignificant amount? I may be misreading your intent, but what I hear is that everyone is entitled to basic phone service. Anyone wanting more had better be willing to pay through the nose, since wanting more is not in harmony with the common good. Those that have trouble affording basic service are entitled to be subsidized by those wanting something over and above what has been declared "adequate". But telephone service is hardly food, shelter, or clothing. If "standard" telephone service costs $X, then ten times the standard service should cost $10X, not $20X or $40X. If the ordinary necessities of life carry a fixed cost, then what gives anyone the right to use utility pricing as a vehicle for social influence? For instance, I pay about twenty times as much for electricity than someone in a small, one-room apartment. Do I use twenty times as much? No, of course not. But our state regulators have decreed that the price of electricity will increase with demand. The intent is to allow low-income people to be able to afford electicity and to encourage conservation. Very laudable, you say. But the real effect is to penalize people who are sharing a house such as families, college students, and yes, even poor people who are all living under one roof (and one electric meter). The end rate that a residential customer pays is considerably higher than the business rate. I find it disconcerting that someone posting from an institution of higher learning would dismiss the "curiosity satisfying" calls of the Moderator so quickly. Is life to consist of subsistance? The tone reminds me of the spiders in a box. The moment one tries to get out, the others pull him back in. Thank heaven there are people who have the curiousity and ambition to explore and experiment (activities that I thought were supposed to take place in schools). Because I am a heavy telephone user, there are many coffers that are being enriched: 911 Lifeline (poor subsidy) City, State, Federal governments The one thing I DO get is a healthy discount on long distance due to my volume and WATS lines. Do you call that a subsidy? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 05:31:24 CST From: adg%ukfca1.uk.ate.slb.com@sj.ate.slb.com Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) In the UK you pay about ten pounds more per quarter per line for business lines from British Telecom. Current rates are 27.75 Uk Stg business and 17.13 domestic, excluding VAT at 15% which most businesses may reclaim. Basically this puts you one peg above the 'public' in terms of service - this means quicker installations and repairs. They run a compensation scheme which provides a five pound a day rebate for lines which are down for more than four days. For business lines you may claim for loss of business - if you can prove it was due to the loss of 'phone service. Also as a business you get a BT account manager assigned to you and a free entry in the Yellow Pages classified directories. Some areas divide business and domestic customers in the directories, so if you want potential customers to be able to find you you'd better be in the right section! BT's philosophy seems to be that if you want business class service pay for it. Although I don't think they'd allow a cheap skate company to have 70 trunk lines as a domestic subscriber. Mercury's 2300 indirect service make no distinction between business and personal usage, though their application form asks you to tick what you'll be using the service for. Racal Vodaphone ( cellular ) assume everyone paying the 25 Uk Stg per MONTH is a business user. Adam Gorman, Solstice Systems Ltd on contract to Schlumberger Technologies ATE Division Ferndown Dorset UK ------------------------------ From: Robert Trebor Woodhead Subject: Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives! Date: 7 Jan 91 04:42:25 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Today I had the most pleasant dealing with the phone company experience ever. Too bad I had to travel 14 time zones to get it. Along with my new Tokyo apaato (just big enough, barely, to swing a dead cat in) I of course needed a phone. So off I went, with a friend, to the local NTT office to order phone service. We expected a big crowd, because today is the first real day of business after the New Year's Holiday, during which the entire country screetches to a halt for about 10 days. Apparently, everyone else figured there would be a crush too, and decided to go this afternoon, because the place was deserted. A half dozen dedicated NTT employees looked plaintively at us, hoping against hope that we would give them something to do. Clearly, they were fed up with forced inactivity of the holidays. Of course, we couldn't just walk up to a service representative. No, that wouldn't do at all. In a great imitation of David Brenner's infamous "Getting a burger after midnight in LA" routine, we first had to go to a special ticket machine and get a number. I pressed the button, and in a second or two the machine printed a shiny ticket bearing the number "1." The NTT employees leaped for the buttons that would indicate that their service station was available. Ms. Yoshida, obviously a devotee of game shows, hit her button first. A synthesized announcement invited us, in the most deferential language, to visit her. We were almost sorry we didn't have to wait, as there was a comfortable lounge, stocked with magazines, not to mention a coffee shop around the corner. Having explained that we wanted a telephone, and given my address, Ms. Yoshida attacked a stack of paperwork with same fervor that the average salaryman reserves for his lunchtime noodles. A flurry of other employees held quick, impromptu meetings. A consensus was reached. Yes, indeed, the foreigner could have a telephone. It would even be possible to get a second line for a fax at any time desired. A large digital signboard displayed the possible times when the lineman could come to connect the telephone. Further checking indicated that this would not be needed. Next, a conference was held to determine which, of the myriad of numbers available, would be best for me. They could not decide, so they presented me with four possible alternatives. Which did I want? I gave them careful consideration; to do any less would be insulting. Although Japanese phones don't have the ABC DEF... on the numbers that US phones do, I checked them for meaningul four letter combinations. No such luck. However, being a strange gaijin who didn't know any better, I decided to ask if *I* could choose my phone number. More conferences. The computer was consulted. This was indeed a strange request, but then, everyone knew that foreigners had wierd customs. Ms. Yoshida came back and told me that, yes, I could choose my own phone number, and if it was available, they would be glad to let me have it. She further told me that due to the recent expansion of Tokyo exchanges to four digits, and the fact that my house was located in an area that was using one of the new four digit exchanges that start with five, almost all the numbers in my exchange were available, including all numbers starting with 3,4,6 and 9. A wonderful discovery, I thought, as I decided which four letter word I would use. I resisted the temptation to use an anglo- saxonism. That would be abusing their hospitality. I was strongly tempted by SEXY, GAME, and ROBT, but ended up going with the more pedestrian WOOD. All choices made, Ms. Yoshida gravely ushered me to the cashier, where I paid my deposit. My phone service would be started that very night. Amid a veritable hail of thank yous, we took our leave of NTT. Yes, they extracted 75,000 yen from me, but as god is my witness, it was worth it! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:52:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Reply-To: hansm@cs.kun.nl Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands In article <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ralph Moonen writes: [about he Dutch phone system] >002 - speaking clock >003 - weather forecast Not anymore. They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990. They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call. When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an ``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? >001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the > 06-041x range. Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. Have a nice day, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl (machine currently down for OS upgrade) hm@fwi.uva.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 10:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Instructing the local exchange carriers to reroute calls away from AT&T would be easier if the local exchange carriers had an intelligent network in place in which call routing decisions were made in centrallized Service Control Points (SCP), as with AT&T's 800 translation database. At the present time, however, there are still many electro-mechanical offices, where programs cannot be easily changed, or stored program control offices where the change would have to be made at each CO rather than centrally. Perhaps in five or ten years the solution you propose will be feasible. It should take AT&T much less time to increase the redundancy and automatic rerouting capabilities of its own network. Marvin Sirbu [Moderator's Note: The thing is Marvin, throughout the history of phones, we've nearly always been in a state of flux. Manual service mixed with automation; crossbar with step; ESS with older offices, etc. If we always waited until *everyone* was equally equipped, we'd never get anywhere. Some subscribers could do things others could not do. An example was equal access / 10xxx dialing. Is everyone finally cut over on this? Why not go with this suggestion *where it is technically feasable at present* and add offices as they are otherwise converted or brought up to date? If only half the telephone subscribers at present could be automatically and transparently re-routed in the event of a major problem, think of the confusion and congestion which would be eliminated. And frankly, I think the idea of having all of our eggs in one basket -- as a manner of speaking -- where fiber optic is concerned is going to cause even more incidents as time goes on. Trivia: The latest AT&T fiasco comes just before the first anniversary of the January 15 software failure last year. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 06:19:24 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive. Calls cost 15 cents/min plus > a termination charge that depends on where you call. Calling Mexico > City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana. Is > that normal? I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border. One of the more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from special international toll agreements. Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number. Costs were minimal. They were handled via a cable that ran from El Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main. Then came the MFJ. "Special deals" like this went away and the 905 NPA applied. Rates went higher. Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system. 011+Country Code+ etc. Is this progress? Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask? Well, Judge Green must think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 01:49:32 GMT [NB: I tried to reply to Hank by email but the address was inadequate.] In article <15773@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HANK@taunivm (Hank Nussbacher) writes: > Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for > transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit. There is no time > charge. I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for > 64kb X.25 usage. Telecom Australia's Austpac service charges $A1.20 ($US0.93) per kilosegment. There is a time charge also (low for permanent connections and $A4.20/hr for dial). Permanent X.25 connections range from $A3700 pa for 2400bps to $18500 pa for 48000bps (64K coming soon). Note that these are nation-wide, distance independent prices, and Australia is nearly as big as the US or Europe. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #16 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13918; 10 Jan 91 1:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31210; 10 Jan 91 0:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04586; 9 Jan 91 23:16 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:17:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #17 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092217.ab00581@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:16:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ClassMate: A Review [Eric J. Johnson] Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones [Steve Forrette] Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cellular Phone [Monte Freeman] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin] Help Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Peter Anvin] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Ed Greenberg] New Breed of COCOT [Steve Forrette] ANI Again [Rich Szabo] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric J. Johnson" Subject: Re: ClassMate: A Review Organization: U S WEST Communications Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:39:15 GMT In <15786@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's >phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by >your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service. [ an accurate review deleted ] I just got mine in the mail last week after enduring a three month back order. I immediately tossed the software that came with the device (not particularly useful for my application), and spent this weekend writing my own TSR to monitor the serial port continuously and log all the calls to a file on the PC's disk. This was accomplished using pieces of the UUPC communications package and a TSR development library called TESS which is available on Compu$erve. Send me e-mail if you have any detailed questions. Using the calling information stored by the TSR, my Natural MicroSystems 'Watson' card answers the phone like a normal answering machine, but delivers an individualized personal greeting to any calling number it recognizes. It also records the calling number plus the caller's name, if known, on the Rolodex-style message cards indicating messages. This makes it simple to review 'interesting' messages first. Also, any caller blocking Caller*ID receives a terse message and is disconnected without being given an opportunity to leave a message! Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@null.uucp The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in no way reflect the will of Landru. (or U S WEST Communications) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:22:54 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones Regarding long distance sent-paid calls from payphones (prepaid with coins): I had a talk with my Pacific Bell friend a few weeks ago, and just this subject came up. Apparently, the issue is somewhat a technical one. For the past few years, each carrier has been given equal access to the technology to service sent-paid calls. However, it requires that the IXC have a point-of-presence at the payphone's CO - no tandems allowed here. So, for example, to service sent-paid calls in California, a point-of-presence would be required at every CO in the state that has payphones attached to it. As we all know, there's only one carrier that has gone to that trouble (they shall remain nameless, but their initials are AT&T). But the fact remains, that there is indeed "equal access" to the technology for each carrier. One of the reasons that the "other guys" aren't jumping to get into this segment of the market is that it is a declining one. However, this may change soon. My friend was involved in a trial in Reno of some new technology that would allow control of the payphone's coin mechanism through a tandem. It would possibly require some extra equipment on the IXC's end, but not a POP in each exchange. So, in the future, we may actually have a choice for sent-paid calls. As for what the Moderator said about having competition in this area in Chicago, has he actually tried this? In Northern California at least, there is a variety of carriers on Bell payphones, but only for operator-assisted or calling card calls. Sent-paid calls go over AT&T always, regardless of the equal access default for that phone. Another problem with sent-paid, particularly with international calls, is that the totalizer in the payphones can only handle $3 or so. For some international calls, the initial rate may be more than this. So, what do you do? If collect into the coin box after $3, then keep counting until the initial rate is deposited, what do you do if the call doesn't complete? You can't return the first three dollars! But, the only other option is to allow the call to complete with less than the initial rate deposited. Then, if the caller doesn't deposit the rest, what can the carrier do? I tried to call a number in Europe somewhere, and apparently sent-paid international calls are always handled by the operator - no automated coin collection here. I was told that I had to deposit $3, then they would dial the call. If it wasn't answered, my $3 would be returned. If it completed, the other party would be asked to hold while I deposited the remainder of the initial rate, at which time the operator would let the call complete. [Moderator's Note: With a couple of cell phones, calling cards from Illinois Bell/AT&T and Sprint, and an 800 number attached to my home line, I've had no need to deposit coins in the slot for years. I have to admit to only reading instruction cards -- not actually following the instructions. When the initial rate is more than the table will hold then the operators here place the call, and on successful connection they tell the called party to stand by; split the connection, collect their money and reconnect the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:04:39 -0500 From: Monte Freeman Subject: Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cell Phone Pat, Some time ago there was quite a bit of discussion here about cellular telephones. One of the things that was mentioned was special codes that the cellular phone retailer/installer could enter on the phone to find out various pieces of information about it and/or change that information. At the time, I didn't follow the discussion too closely since I didn't own a cellular phone. Well, that has changed now. I am now the proud(?) owner of an OKI Products hand-held cellular phone. What I need to know is if you or one of the Telecom readers can provide me with the code(s) for this particular telephone. I know that one exists, because earlier today I took the phone to a repair shop. I accidentally LOCKED the phone, and didn't remember the UNLOCK code. I told the technician my problem. He turned the phone on, held down the RCL and MENU keys at the same time, and then keyed in a nine or ten digit sequence of numbers on the keypad. This string of numbers started with about six zero's, but he was going so fast that I couldn't keep up with him. Naturally, he refused to give me the code he used, mumbling something about copyright laws and professional ethics. Personally, as long as the phone belongs to me, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to look at any portion of it I want to. If that includes the configuration information, so be it. If I screw it up, then I should have to pay to have it put back in working order again. But I digress here. We could debate this subject for quite some time I expect. Anyway, if you or anyone else could help me out with this it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Monte Freeman Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccoprfm Internet: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Here's your message. Maybe someone will send us the details on this specific phone. As you may know, I fully favor the right of cell phone owners to program their own instruments in a lawful manner to cut expenses when roaming or changing numbers, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 8 Jan 91 04:04:37 GMT Organization: Northwestern University In article <15804@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kari Hardarson writes: >I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a >phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether >the phone will work at all for that matter. Yes, the phone will work. I have tried myself to use U.S.-bought phones in Sweden. However, a few things to keep in mind (this applies to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of Scandinavia): 1. Get a touch-tone phone. If you have to use pulse dial, Sweden had their "0" where the U.S. "1" was, so you have to change all phone numbers around according to this cipher: for "0" dial "1", for "1" dial "2", etc, for "8" dial "9", for "9" dial "0". This does not apply to touch-tone. 2. (This applies to all Europe): Do not bring a cordless phone! Europe is in a different ITU region (1) than the U.S. (2), and have different frequency allocation. It is illegal to bring in a cordless phone, being an unauthorized radio transmitter. 3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R". I don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly what it does. 4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other phone system in the world. Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not work properly. It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones. 5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. 6. Get a Swedish phone cord when you get there; Televerket has recently picked up on the rest of the world and started using RJ-11 modular plugs, so you can easily get a phone cord with a modular plug in one end and a Swedish phone plug in the other in any local Telebutik (Televerket shop). Happy travelling! H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Date: 8 Jan 91 04:10:56 GMT Organization: Northwestern University Here is a problem that it takes the expertise of comp.dcom.telecom to solve: I live with a roommate in a room with only one phone outlet, in a building only wired for one phone line per room. I use my modem frequently, and it has become a problem with the incompatibility of the modem and a regular telephone; in other words it is easy to pick up the headset when the phone looks free, just to ruin a modem connect, and vice versa I don't want autodialing programs, such as my FidoNet mailer, to try to call out while my roommate uses the phone (it generates significant amounts of noise if it tries to pick up the line). Therefore, I would like to get a "first come, first serve" phone switch to plug into the single phone outlet, and once *either* of the two output lines goes off-hook, the other one should be automatically disconnected from the main line. ALSO, if possible I would like the device to capture distinctive ringing and depending on type of first ring ring either the phone (with answering machine) or the modem (with autoanswer). This is not as important, though. If there is such a device on the market, or if someone knows how I could build a device like this myself, I would like to know. I wrote this article offline earlier; I saw something in the last 50-or-so messages about a device to capture Distinctive Ringing. Could that device handle the first part of this problem as well? H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 09:45 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? Paul Coen writes about a possibly misleading AT&T advert, in which is is implied that changing carriers will affect incoming call quality. I immediately associated the premise that changing LD carriers would affect quality of calls home with the use of a calling card. The problem here is that it isn't clear that one can have one LD service and originate calls on any service, both at home and away. The most important thing to remember though is that these ads are not designed to educate and inform, but to create an emotional response. By training us to have an emotionally positive response to AT&T, and a negative response to the concept of any other LD carriers, AT&T hopes to have us suspend our skepticism with respeect to their claims, while rejecting out of hand the claims and offers of others. edg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:32:49 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: New Breed of COCOT I've not seen this one before. It looks very much like the blue AT&T coinless phones that they often have at airports or highway rest stops in the middle of nowhere. No screen or card reader, just the dialing pad and receiver. This one looked very much like the AT&T one, in fact, I wasn't sure until I tried to dial 10288, which after about the 2, resulted in "This is not a valid number." Looking closer, the logo on the upper left corner looks much like the Pacific Bell asterisk, except there are only five points instead of six. I didn't fiddle with it any further. It was at the Taco Bell (I didn't realize the humor in this until just now! :-)) in Mt. Verde, Arizona, which really is in the middle of nowhere. [Moderator's Note: There are some COCOTS here which require a careful examination to detirmine that they are not 'genuine Bell'. So how come if their 'alternate service' is so good they have to try so hard to decieve the public to make them think it is a Bell phone? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:50:58 -0500 From: Rich Szabo Subject: ANI Again Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu I understand from the definition in GLOSSARY.TXT that ANI info is passed from the LEC to the IEC. I can see how a 800- or 900- service customer could get the ANI info, since his incoming calls are all routed thru the particular IEC. What I do not understand is, could a small business could get the ANI info without buying an 800 or (heaven forbid) a 900 number? Sorry to re-hash this topic, but the subject has come up locally. Rich Szabo [Moderator's Note: At the present time, I do not think you can get ANI without an 800/900 number. They of course can get Caller ID in many places with regular lines, and the end result may be much the same, but many here will hasten to tell you ANI is not Caller ID. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 08:52:10 GMT In article <15850@accuvax.nwu.edu> floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) >writes: >>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >>completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >>inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) >Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only >the last four digits. But also it is unlikely that there would be two >switches and only one NPA. My statement above is a bit brain damaged. I was thinking of office codes, not area codes when I wrote that. Guess I gotta stop posting at 3 AM. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #17 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14936; 10 Jan 91 2:53 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18938; 10 Jan 91 1:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31210; 10 Jan 91 0:20 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #18 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092348.ab29108@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [David Brightbill] Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [David Gast] Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [Lou Judice] Emergency Re-Routing [Jack Dominey] Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss [Casey Leedom] How to Get a 900#'s Address [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 09:13:36 -0500 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service Bob Sherman writes: > So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is >a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly. >The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who >can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for >something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit >zip codes etc. A little known FREE service of your US Postal Service is that they will do the same thing. You have to provide the data in a fixed format on certain media (5 1/4 msdos format disks are one), fill out a form, and send it in. Several weeks later, you get back corrected data, +4 zip codes, standard address codes, etc. They will even supply suite/apartment numbers for individuals or businesses in large buildings. Check with the commercial mailing rep at your local large post office. Davie Brightbill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:16:25 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? One of the recurring questions asked in this forum is "What number do I dial to determine what number I am calling from?" The answer, of course, is that it varies from location to location. The Moderator has noted that the number changes all the time and that it should change frequently. Presumably, he is concerned about fraud. If I can call some number to find out what number I am dialing from, it makes it easy to plant a bug or to call collect to that number, for example. The contradiction, it seems, comes from the Moderator's frequent and outspoken support for Caller-ID. With CID, the bad guy/gal just calls his/her home phone with a CID box and records the information. Thus, the same information for the same illicit behavior will be available. PAT will surely be mad if someone else accepts a collect phone call from an AOS on his line in the basement of his building. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast [Moderator's Note: Moderators do not contradict themselves, but I thank you for sharing your concern. I noted that the 'numbers to call' are different from location to location, and that they change frequently. I am not aware of saying I thought they *should* be changed frequently. And yes, while I could go in the basement and use someone else's pair to get a readback or call my own number and get a CID reading, both of these actions are illegal on their face by virtue of me burglarizing the basement phone box to begin with (if it is not within my specific authority to wire, modify or examine the box). On the other hand, it is not and should not be illegal for me to ascertain my own phone number if I have forgotten it or gotten confused by the wires in my possession. Neither should it be illegal for me to ascertain the identity -- or at the very least the phone number -- of the anonymous person calling me. Don't blame good and useful technology just because some people abuse it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 06:59:06 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951 Subject: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently. Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes. Now of course building and maintaining a small number of very high capacity trunks must make a lot of good economic sense (fewer repeaters, less cable to maintain, etc.) But, the service outages say that something is missing in terms of redundancy - which I always thought was a major part of telephone system design. Am I just naive to think that the system used to be more reliable???? A joke I've heard recently in telecom circles is "wouldn't it be funny if fiber optic cable loses it's light transmission characteristics after being buried for say, 25 years..." The line of reasoning is that perhaps putting so many eggs in one basket may not be such a great idea? ljj [Moderator's Note: Yes, the system used to be much more reliable. There was a spirit of cooperation and a desire for excellence which has been gradually fading away since divestiture. Now, if a large segment of the network goes out -- something that was unthinkable ten or fifteen years ago -- they just say 'use someone else for the time being', as though that settled the matter. Sad, isn't it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 8 09:47:11 EST 1991 Subject: Emergency Re-Routing Someone suggested recently (and our Moderator concurred) that in cases of cable cuts and similar disasters, LD carriers should provide automatic re-routing of calls to other networks. While the idea sounds more reasonable as I consider it longer, one issue does stick out. If such a program were implemented, the people affected would be placing calls, expecting service from their default carrier, but actually receiving service from someone else. Sound familiar? It's awfully similar to the discussions of slamming that have rolled around in here for some time. For that reason, the idea of transparent re-routing bothers me somewhat. The effect would be mitigated by announcing the policy well before any emergency, with a bill insert or some such, and by making arrangements so that I would be billed through my default carrier. The latter, however, would be incredibly difficult to arrange and execute. In fact, the carriers will probably decide that it's easier to identify critical points in the network (such as the AT&T Newark cable) and provide redundant and/or better-protected facilities. (It's hard to protect against your own engineers and line people, though!) Jack Dominey | AT&T Commercial Markets | 800 241-4285 | attmail !dominey My own opinions except as noted. [Moderator's Note: They would not be receiving service from 'someone else'. They would be receiving service from their own carrier on lines their carrier temporarily leased *from someone else*. That makes a big difference. Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and from each other. The OCC's may in fact still parcel out a lot of their international traffic to AT&T in a way transparent to their users. An intercompany emergency re-routing system would say to the public, "Don't worry about *how* we handle your call; it is our obligation to see that it gets handled, period." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Casey Leedom Subject: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss Date: 8 Jan 91 19:05:42 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory I just moved into a house in the Berkeley hills. I plan on tele-commuting to work several days a week using an X terminal and V.32 over Telebit T2500s (GE7.00 PROMs.) Unfortunately, my V.32 connections keep on dropping after anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. When I examine the line quality register, S78, it's 100 both before and after the connection drops. It appears that the T2500s can maintain a PEP connection forever, but the ``instantaneous'' transmit and receive bit rates, S70 and S72, are very low, in the 12K-15K range. When I look at the bit assignments per PEP sub-carrier, I see a curve that looks like the following: 6 | ------ - ----- 4 | - ------------------------- 2 | --------- 0 |-- - - ----- whereas the typical PEP bit assignment curve I've observed looks more like: 6 | ------ - ------------------------------- 4 | - ------- 2 | -- 0 |-- - - ---- (Sorry I can't give you exact figures -- I need to hook up a PC of some kind to capture the data from the modem but I haven't had to time to borrow one yet.) I've been told that the two zero drop outs are for the PEP retraining signals. The big issue is that the mid and high frequency sub-carriers don't seem to be up to snuff. I asked PacBell to come out and test the frequency response of the line outside and inside the house to determine whether it was ``their problem'' or my house wiring, but they don't seem to be able to do that. Amazing. Apparently there used to be a PREFIX-00XX number that the service technicians could call that would provide a 0DB frequency sweep, but all they've got available now is PREFIX-0020 which provides a 1004Hz tone at 0DB. I can't tell whether the central office was jiving the technician who came out (he made a real and very valiant effort to help me -- this is my second great experience with PacBell service technicians by the way) or whether they really don't have any method of doing a frequency response test. I suppose their attitude could be that there's really nothing simple (read "cheap") that can be done if there is a frequency line impairment, so why bother test -- besides, it would give the customers something solid to bitch about (corresponding computer programming maxim: ``Don't test for bugs you either can't fix or don't want to deal with.'') The service technician who came out also mentioned that my house is just about as far from the central office as I could get without being assigned to a different CO. However, he thought that all the street wiring was fairly new. By the way, the drop to my house is twisted six-pair. The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring. The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair. Yes, I said aluminum! Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and showed the wiring to says they've never heard of aluminum being used for telephone wiring ... and some of them have been in the telephone business for over twenty years! I'm running a voice circuit on line one (green/red -- tied to the white-blue/blue-white pair in the three-pair) and the modem on line two (black/yellow -- tied to the white-orange/orange-white pair of the three-pair.) The white-green/green-white pair of the three-pair is unattached and unterminated. There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and the telephone jack I'm trying to use. It's also wired serially through a jack about ten feet from the drop box. That earlier jack has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two. The far jack also has a telephone set on line one in addition to the modem on line two. While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular clicking.) As soon as the modems start up it becomes nearly impossibly to hear the cross talk. I don't think I can hear any cross talk when using V.32. In any case, because I wasn't able to get anywhere with PacBell, I'm left to simply replace the wiring in my house an hope that that clears up the problems. So, the point of this article: 1. I welcome any comments about frequency response testing and getting PacBell to fix their wiring if it's the problem. And just what are the nominal levels of service that they do promise to provide? 2. I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular, does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency response loss? 3. I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of capacitance coupling. Am I dreaming that up? Will I be doing more harm than good by running copper twisted pair? 4. We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk net, and up to three phone lines. Does anyone see any problem with cross talk doing this? Thanks for any help you may be able to offer. Since this is such a broad question, may spark a lot of discussion, and be of interest to a lot of people, I think that posting followups would be best rather than sending me mail. P.S. I just learned about the ATJ6J0 command. Here's the output of that command after one of my line drops. Unfortunately I have no idea what the output means ... Is the interpretation of this output part of the ``Undocumented Features'' document by Telebit? ATJ6J0 R000000 R000 N003 EC000 T000000 F000000 R000000 M000000 E000000 F000000 000000 000 000 000 001 000 000 000 000 L L T000 M000 L001 C000 OK Thanks, Casey ------------------------------ Date: 6-JAN-1991 16:04:39.87 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: How to Get a 900#'s Address Hi- John Levine recently posted a message about being called by an automatic/ recorded solicitation for a 900 number, which gave a mail-drop address but no other address to reach them at. I've had this problem myself for a few months now. It seems that someone in my local area keeps calling all the numbers in my exchange (and the other nearby local exchanges) every few weeks with a silly 900 number solicitation. One of my numbers has Call-forwarding, and they have always managed to call when my forwarding is set to some toll number! So I typed up a general letter, which more or less says that the recorded solicitations are harassing and annoying, and that I am giving them written notice to stop, and a reasonable period of time to reprogram their equipment so that I no longer receive any calls at any of my numbers. (I also mail it out registered, so I get confirmation that someone actually received the letter.) The problem was getting their actual addresses. After numerous futile efforts, I called New York Telephone's Call Annoyance Bureau. At first they told me it was something the "FCC had to investigate", and told me to call a special office at the FCC about it. When I asked for the number, the rep. said "Oh, it is a private number, we can't give it out." After pointing out how ridiculous this was, I told the rep. a number at the FCC, she said she was surprised that the FCC gave out their numbers, and said that I should thus call them. I told the rep. that this was unacceptable, and that as NY Tel was the billing agency for this 900 company (for NY Tel customers), and that NY Tel MUST be sending them a bill somewhere, and that I wanted the address that NY Tel used. She refused to give this out, so I said, "Ok, let me start over. I am getting calls that I consider harassing and annoying. Your phone book states that you can take care of these calls. So take care of them. YOU tell whoever is calling me to stop - I'll even give you a pre-typed letter that you can send them with all the details." She paused for a while, and no doubt realizing that this will mean a lot of extra work for her, said, "Ok, what are the services you wanted again?" and I read off the list of all the different 900 companies, and she just read off the billing address from the computer. All the addresses were in Nevada, but I did get the return forms in the mail from four of the five companies that I mailed to, so perhaps this will take care of the calls once they tell whoever it is around my area with the solicitation machine to try some other set of numbers (or just de-program my numbers from the machine, if such a thing is possible.) I would suggest that anyone having similar problems contact the call annoyance bureau of their local telco and approach the situation as a "call annoyance" problem, which got the right response in my case. This has also worked with SNET (who were a bit more reluctant at first), and NE Tel/Mass (who were actually very helpful and gave me the addresses right away without an argument. ) Good luck! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Maybe you could share with us the names and addresses of the ones you have located. Please? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #18 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16238; 10 Jan 91 4:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26855; 10 Jan 91 2:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18938; 10 Jan 91 1:24 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 1:00:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #19 BCC: Message-ID: <9101100100.ab00219@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 00:59:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Toby Nixon] Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [John Higdon] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Roger Fulton] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Michael Dorrian] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Sean Williams] Catalog and Magazines Wanted [blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu] Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill [Ronald Greenberg] Caller ID Online in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7-JAN-1991 03:34:43.81 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB Hi- I've heard numerous reasons as to why New Jersey Bell has the 10NJB system for calling to New York City from North Jersey, and I'm not sure any/all are correct, but here goes: 1. NY Tel and NJ Bell "historically" had a high degree of interconnectivity between New York City and northern New Jersey, and could not have AT&T take over all calls between these two areas for technical reasons back in 1984. Callers on older exchanges in NY City (mainly XBars that can't do "Equal Access" 10xxx dialing, although many have been modified to do this) are automatically handled by NY Tel to Northen Jersey, and are itemized as NY Tel toll calls. NY Tel's "Hello" Magazine mentioned that the situation between NY Tel and NJ Bell was analogous to having older equipment which couldn't be quickly converted, which is why there is this special "transport corridor" (as they called it) between NY and NJ. (How does this account for the Trenton and PA 10NJB/10BPA(?) connection, though?) 2. NY Tel and NJ Bell got a special waiver from (his Lordship) Judge Green, who allowed each other to handle calls between the two regions. (Again, did he do the same thing for the South Jersey/PA system as well?) 3. NJ Bell and NY Tel have always provided service between these two areas, so AT&T shouldn't get to serve it now. This is a bit like the "historical" argument (#1), yet under this rationale NJ Bell and NY Tel get to keep the service in perpetuity. I tend myself to think #2 is correct, although #1 may have been another reason back around 1984/1985. In any event, the system as it is now allows callers calling between NY City and sections of the North Jersey Counties (how many are there? three?) to use the facilities of NY Tel or NJ Bell to make calls across the state line at (usually) lower rates than AT&T. Calling Card calls will also cost less, as NY Tel charges something like 40 cents per call + toll, while AT&T starts off at 80 cents. (Note this does not apply to Reach Out America Card Option customers during the plan's hours, as there is NO surcharge for inter-state calls.) NJ Bell even forces you to use 10NJB from some payphones. At Newark International Airport, about ten miles from NYC, if you dial 0-212-xxx-xxxx, which is, of course, out of state, you will NOT be routed over AT&T. Instead, you can hear the payphone outpulse "10NJB" and then the number, sort of like a COCOT would, but it is a real Western Electric/NJ Bell payphone. It will only do this for calls to NYC which would be applicable under 10NJB. You can, of course, dial 10288+0-212-xxx-xxxx to get to NYC via AT&T, which ROA-Card Option callers may want to do DURING the plan's hours. NJB advertises "10-NJB" as a cost-saving feature quite often on local radio, and has special business plans to NYC as well. Also, any caller in North Jersey who is on a local calling card call can "sequence call" (press the "#"/octothorpe to make a new call(s)) to NYC, even though this is in another state. However, if you try sequence calling to an area outside of NYC, you will get the message "You may ONLY dial another New Jersey Bell handled call, now." (Hmmm ... looks like NJBel gave up on its pathetic calling card system and is using AT&T's now ... at least in North Jersey. ) NY Tel is much less aggressive in marketing its 10NYT service, although it works the same way. They do mail out letters to business customers about special deals to North Jersey, but overall don't seem to care about this as much as NJ Bell does. You can also make "sequence"/# calls on NY Tel's pathetic Calling Card/automated operator system to North Jersey. One interesting note: You can use 10NYT to call Directory Assistance in 201. How are you billed for this? At NY Tel's rates? Or the standard 60 cents that AT&T charges? I wonder if this counts in a person's DA charge allowance, which in NYC is a big whole *three* requests! :( Guess that's it for now... Please mail me any corrections/questions to alert me of them faster, NEWS has been slow here lately. -Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. Mike Jensen- I've been trying to mail you a reply that I typed up to your question about GTE Mobilnet and the different types of roaming that are available to you. All my attempts bounced. Do you have another address that I may try? Thanks... ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Date: 8 Jan 91 16:07:27 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA DTMF tones are defined in CCITT Recommendation Q.23. The matrix looks like this: Hz 1209 1336 1477 1633 697 1 2 3 A 770 4 5 6 B 852 7 8 9 C 941 * 0 # D The A/B/C/D tones are used in some feature phones on PBXes, and are also available in some modems (including most from Hayes). The transmitted frequency must be within +/- 1.8% of the nominal frequency. Total distortion products (harmonics, intermodulation) must be at least 20dB below the fundamental frequencies. The transmitted level of the tones is not specified by the CCITT, and left up to national requirements (I believe FCC Part 68 includes restrictions, and EIA-496-A also has specs in this area). See Recommendations Q.23 and Q.24 for more details. 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls Date: 8 Jan 91 11:59:09 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Steve Forrette writes: > but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first > minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be > higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling > card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that larger amounts could be collected for short calls. In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement. (Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent. Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning. Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe first-hand how they handle coin phones there. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Roger Fulton Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising Date: 8 Jan 91 21:43:44 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <15367@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing >decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use, >and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >public. Someone please tell me that. Do you really mean to say that AT&T is not responsible for what "some ad agency" produces for them? Roger Fulton roger@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 23:46 GMT From: Michael Dorrian <0003493915@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising Paul Coen writes concerning yet another telecom advertisement targeted at the insecurity of your average caller. A recent {Los Angeles Times} tells of another radio spot... It's a typical weekday morning and you're driving to work, distractedly switching from one radio station to the next. First stop: A commercial seems to be playing. You're about to turn to another station but something sounds a bit strange... A man with an ordinary voice is saying: "So,it's three in the morning, the phone rings. It's some guy from MCI tellin' me how AT&T charges too much for long-distance, and how he can save me all kinds of money. So I tell him put it in writing. Silence. I go back to bed and then the phone rings again! Hello. This time it's a guy from AT&T. He says that when an MCI operator is talkin' to me real friendly and all, she's flippin' me the bird at the same time! She is? So by now it's 3:30, and just as I'm dozing off, the phone rings. Now I'm getting steamed. What! It's the guy from MCI again. He says, 'Sure AT&T gives instant credit, but they're getting the money from widows and orphans!" They are? So just as I'm about to slam the phone down on him, somebody knocks on my door. It's a guy from Sprint! He says AT&T is secretly shipping A-Bombs to Iraq, MCI is burning down rain forests when they're not too busy killing dolphins ... and that all the Sprint operators work in the nude. Why can't they leave me alone?" The whole inanity associated with the Big 3's attempts to differienate a commodity product caught the eye of some writers at DB Communications, who produce parodies of commercials for radio jocks. Faithful TELECOM Digest readers wouldn't have been fooled, since we all know that Sprint operators dont't really work in the nude. Unfortunately, it appears that we will continue to be subjected to these ads as the LD marketing forces-that-be have decided that since there is no advantage to continued price decreases (to build and retain market share), funding will now be applied to marketing and promotions. So buckle yourself in for the next year or so. I just got a mailer from Sprint offering me a "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" if I sign up for their service. It's a duplicate of a promotion I received about a year ago. Two days ago I would have viewed these mailers as a subsidy for the postal service. In light of the planned postal increase, maybe Sprint is flogging the "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" as part of their recycling campaign of tired old promotions. Has any reader succumbed to this tempting offer? Michael Dorrian The RTP Group, Mid-Atlantic 703-243-6000 MCI Mail 349-3915 ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 8 18:46:15 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Eric Tholome writes: >> ...I am looking for the frequencies used in tone mode phones. I know each >> key generates two frequencies more or less based on C D and E music notes, >> but I would like something a little bit more precise. 1209 1336 1477 1633 <- Hertz ___ ___ ___ ___ | | | | | | | | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | A | 0697 When a key is pressed |___| |___| |___| |___| a single frequency ___ ___ ___ ___ from the low group | | | | | | | | and a single frequency | 4 | | 5 | | 6 | | B | 0770 from the high group |___| |___| |___| |___| are generated simul- ___ ___ ___ ___ taneously. Both | | | | | | | | frequencies must exist | 7 | | 8 | | 9 | | C | 0852 for the carrier equip- |___| |___| |___| |___| ment to recognize the ___ ___ ___ ___ signal. | | | | | | | | | * | | 0 | | # | | D | 0941 |___| |___| |___| |___| The frequency pairs shown above are used throughout the world where tone signalling is utilized. The tones have been carefully selected so that the processing circuits in the central office will not confuse them with other tones which may occur on the line. The time required for the central office to recognize any digit tone is 50 milliseconds with an interdigit interval of another 50 milliseconds. The term "Touch-Tone(tm)" is a trademark of AT&T. Sources: "Understanding Telephone Electronics" Texas Instruments Inc., 1983. "Data Communications: A User's Guide" Ken Sherman, Simon & Schuster, 1990. Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu Subject: Catalogs and Magazines Wanted Date: 9 Jan 91 04:01:29 GMT Reply-To: blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana Could some one please email me the name and how to get a copy of a good telcom type magazine ... or is there one? Help! blumbergkm@eb.usl.edu [Moderator's Note: One that comes to mind is Teleconnect Magazine, and the numerous other books and resources available from the publisher of Telecom Library in New York City. They're listed with 800 and 212 directory assistance. They even run an interesting BBS. An interesting catalog is the one put out by "Hello Direct", a telecom equipment mail order house in California. Call 1-800-HI-HELLO. There are many others: readers here who publish newsletters or newsletters and/or produce seminars will no doubt send you direct mail advising you of their things. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:21:02 -0500 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill Two months ago I got a charge from AT&T on my local bill (C&P Telephone) for a call from Newark, NJ to Oxon Hill, MD. I live in DC, was not in NJ at the time, use ITT as my LD carrier, and have nothing to do with AT&T. I called the phone number for billing inquiries on the AT&T page, and they said they would credit me; they haven't. I accidentally, ended up writing my check to C&P for the full amount, so I probably would have never remembered that I wasn't credited, but today I got another bogus charge. This time, it is from S ORG (South Orange, I suppose), NJ to a different number in Oxon Hill, MD. Does anybody have any advice on actually getting AT&T to credit me? Is there a way to get C&P Telephone to stop acting as a billing agent for AT&T? I would like to be able to just pay the C&P portion of my bill without having to write any explanations to C&P and without having them complain about anything unpaid. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller ID Online in Atlanta Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:19:08 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I had occasion to speak with a friend today who works for Southern Bell, concerning the implementation date for Caller ID in the Atlanta area. As you may recall from my previous postings, the Georgia PSC approved Southern Bell's tariff request for Caller ID for a one-year trial period. The ordering information will be "in the system" on January 26 (a Saturday, as it turns out), meaning that the service order people will be able to take orders for it beginning that date. I am guessing now that since the 26th is on a Saturday, they won't actually be taking any orders (practically speaking) until the following Monday. We'll see. The Southern Bell people have promised to have the service available in the Atlanta metropolitan are no later than Feb. 14. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #19 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17154; 10 Jan 91 5:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03702; 10 Jan 91 3:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26855; 10 Jan 91 2:28 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 2:17:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #20 BCC: Message-ID: <9101100217.ab31173@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 02:17:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Chris Klausmeier] Re: Secure Lines [Mike Tighe] Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bud Bach] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Ken Abrams] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Colin Plumb] Questions About Caller ID [Jerry Bemis] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Higdon] N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore] Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [David G. Cantor] Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [Peter G. Capek] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Klausmeier Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 16:43:40 CST Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Organization: MIX Communications, Milwaukee, WI (Public access Usenet, Email) In article <15854@accuvax.nwu.edu> Eric Tholome writes: > I know each key generates two frequencies more or less based on C > D and E music notes, but I would like something a little bit more > precise. Here are the DTMF frequencies, according to _Understanding Telephone Electronics_, published by Radio Shack. HIGH GROUP FREQUENCIES (Hz) | 1209 1336 1477 1633 ----+-------------------------- 697 | 1 2 3 A | LOW GROUP 770 | 4 5 6 B FREQUENCIES | (Hz) 852 | 7 8 9 C | 941 | * 0 # D The A, B, C, and D are part of the extended keypad. The percentage error allowed in the frequency varies from country to country. In North America, +- 1.5% is acceptable for the DTMF generator, and +- 2% is acceptable for a DTMF receiver. Chris Klausmeier -- cyaa01@mixcom.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 18:11:58 -0600 From: Mike Tighe Subject: Re: Secure Lines (Joe Broniszewski) asks: > 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line and a > non-secure line? (bill) responds: > There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they use > special telephones, not special telephone lines. Not true on both counts. There is a secure telephone network that is used throughout the intelligence community. Secure telephone units such as the STU-III are only rated up to a level of top secret, and that is not high enough. In fact, government regulations require that the STU-III not be used when the secure telephone system is available. However, this secure telephone network is not what was meant in the book, since these phones are not connected to the public phone system, and Stoll would not be allowed to use it anyway, nor would it be installed at LBL. I think that was just an excuse they gave Stoll so that they could call him back on their terms. (Lars Poulsen) writes: > I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for the > STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. I doubt it. First, in order to have a STU-III, one would need a security clearance, and a security clearance is usually only given to those who have a need to access classified data. In his book, Stoll admits that LBL has no classified data (page 11, paragraph 6, hardcover). Second, from the manner in which Stoll writes about the intelligence community, I doubt he has one, and his work in astronomy is not likely to require one. Third, if he did have one, he would have used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos that gave him the run-around. ------------------------------ From: Bud Bach Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago Date: 9 Jan 91 01:00:45 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the >Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New >Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning, >Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana >which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago. Not all was quiet; I believe there was a fairly significant outage in East Central Florida on Thursday last week. Seems a contractor hit a line. On Saturday, the Florida Today was reporting that Lottery Machines and Bank Tellers were affected by the outage. They also stated that the emergency 911 services backup worked correctly. I don't remember the details of how big a service area was affected but I believe it included all of Brevard County which about 250,000 people in the 407 area. I know I couldn't call my wife for at least an hour (fast busy). Bud Bach c/o Motorola 708 632-6611 Cellular Infrastructure Group ...!uunet!motcid!bachww or 1501 W. Shure Drive bachww%motcid@uunet.uu.net Arlington Heights, IL 60004 ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 8 Jan 91 22:38:35 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? It varies. The least I have ever seen is four. Most common arrangements are five and seven. I think most companies are probably migrating to seven since the difference in signalling time between five and seven digits is minor and being equipped for seven digits gives you more flexibility in unusual situations. >Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Yes, if properly equipped. I think the required feature is Line Link Pulsing. In my area, few were ever equipped this way. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:00:50 GMT In article <15552@accuvax.nwu.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > Back in the old step-by-step telephone days, most installations only had > line-finders for 10-15% of the phones in service. My guess is that for > airfones, something less than that would be adequate. Ever had to wait > for dialtone on your regular phone? It /does/ happen occasionally. But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments. All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone. If nothing else, the physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to passengers than bandwidth. Two possible reasons for paying the weight penalty for more instruments than channels: 1: Multiple banks (first class/economy) *if* the total number of phones in use (A+B) is a more uniform number than A or B separately. For three banks or so, with a dozen instruments each, it's hard to see this being a significant issue. 2: People picking up an airphone and keeping it with them to make occasional calls. This may be an issue, but I expect the utilisation is higher than my home telephone. (P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before releasing the credit card? It sounds like a great way to exchange a stolen credit card for a good one. Insert piece of junk, remove handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door. The getaway offers problems, though.) Colin ------------------------------ From: Jerry Bemis Subject: Questions About Caller ID Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA Date: Wed, 9 Jan 1991 20:19:25 GMT I want detailed info on how to decode the phone number of the person calling when my phone rings. I understand this is an old subject here but I just heard you exist. Are there old articles I should read? Are there any messages which explain the system? Has the FCC written an OST on the subject? [Moderator's Note: First, you have to buy the service from telco if/when they make it available in your community. Until you get to that point there is nothing to decode because they don't send it. Once it is coming in, you can buy a decoder for less than a hundred dollars unless you really want to do the work yourself. Have there been any articles here in the past? YES. So many in fact that most questions and comments about Caller ID are now handled in our companion and supplementary mailing list, 'telecom-priv'. To be added to that list and participate in the discussion, write to the Moderator of the list: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. I do not know about the FCC, but *everyone else* has written on the topic. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 9 Jan 91 02:06:16 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Charles Buckley writes: > No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal > costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it. > This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which > call it. These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the > local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit, > since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent > calling. Does Michigan have language in the tariff that specifies how much a flat rate residential line can be used? Is it specified in percentage of a day, a week, or a year? Why isn't it published? California has no such specification so it would be pretty difficult to question proper use of a residential line based on usage patterns alone. Or (as I suspect) is this "intermittent calling" thing something that you made up for the purpose of this argument? Since the whole business/residential structure is totally arbitrary in the first place, what we don't need is a lot of extraneous reasoning thrown into the pot. The fact of the matter is, telcos don't need any extra revenue from local service. The RBOCs are making so much money they can't throw it away fast enough trying to fund an ever-increasing number of side businesses. Telephone calls are not a limited commodity that the telco has to stock and replenish same. Try this on for size: Residential service is for residences, and business service is for everything else. All the jawboning about who you call, what you say (or modem), how long you talk, and how many calls you make is irrelavant. Assigning significance to it in view of the overall arbitrary nature of the principle is truly the spinning of tires. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 9:42:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Of the areas I have listed as having (now or later) N0X/N1X prefixes, 215, as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by removing the 1+ from toll calls within it (i.e., change from 1+7D to just 7D). I do understand (relying for now on the Digest) that 412 area, elsewhere in Pennsylvania, already has calling instructions like those in store for 215 (why?), although 412 doesn't have N0X/N1X that I know of. I am assuming that area 213 (now 213/818, with area code 310 coming later) in California used the following for toll calls before July 1973 (when it got N0X/N1X): 7D within that area area code + 7D elsewhere I had received apparently-erroneous information that 313 in Michigan was changing 1+7D to 7D; later, I corrected this to read 1 + area code + 7D for toll calls within it (and then there was a recent note in this Digest asking why use 1+313 within 313). ------------------------------ Subject: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 07:51:04 -0800 From: "David G. Cantor" The "billing insert" that I just received from GTE states: "We can block [976 numbers in California and 900 numbers within and outside the state] ... That means no one will be able to call any 900 numbers or 976 numbers from your telephone. Blocking won't stop calls made to 976 numbers outside of California." -------- Because of call-forwarding, tie-lines, private networks, foreign exchanges, etc., you can't possibly be sure where the "other end" (whatever that means when talking to a machine) of a telephone connection is. For example, a call placed through a long-distance service to an area code within California could easily "terminate" in Nevada or Oregon (or New York, for that matter) depending upon how the long-distance service sets these things up (and perhaps private parties with tie-lines, etc). So, how does GTE know that a 976 number is "outside of California"? and why can't GTE simply block ALL 976 numbers (I believe that the following are all of the valid possiblities from this area: Numbers of the form 976-XXXX, 1XXX-976-XXX, and 10XXX1XXX-976-XXX)? David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu [Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone else picks it up), or where they bill it out to. IBT now blocks all calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not. They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no* variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976 or 900 blockade, period. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:29:47 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local Exchange Carrier? When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about the call not being able to be completed. (I tried this by dialing 10288-0-914-762-xxxx). I ask because if there is in fact some legal restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates? (Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..) Part of what got me thinking about this was musing about the possibility of a "call by name" service, which would work similarly to 800/900 in that the dialed number would be translated by the IEC to a local "called" number. Since (at least) AT&T already provides the ability to vary the translation of dialed number to called number based on things like time of day, loading, and the calling number, it seems like it would be only a small matter of programming to provide the ability to let a person vary the translation dynamically. Thus, if I subscribed to such a service, I could publish my number as, say, 600-456-1234, for incoming calls. (I'll sidestep the billing issue for the moment.) Then, by dialing 500-456-1234-password, I could change the translation of the 600 number to be the phone I was calling from. Or with a slightly more complicated protocol, provide a "null" translation for use when I was not reachable. I've described this above using two new area codes (500 and 600) for the purpose, but other implementations are of course possible and may be easier. I wonder if there's a value for such a service, and whether anyone sees any technical feasibility problems with it. It seems like something which any of the IECs could easily offer (and might be more generally useful than personal 800 numbers. Peter Capek [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose. Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they legally get away with it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #20 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06744; 11 Jan 91 0:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27709; 10 Jan 91 22:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31164; 10 Jan 91 21:40 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #21 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102112.ab25887@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Parsons] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Carl Wright] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Andy Jacobson] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:20:06 mst From: John Parsons Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes... > >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and > ...... > 2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. > [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have > been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to > make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. > Then what would you do?.... Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what! (I'll resist flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.) [Our Moderator continues... > Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently > working out of their home in a business-related activity. PAT] And what other instruments would make it "apparent" that a person is running a business in their home? A fax? Photocopier? Typewriter? All these were once "business-only" items. What irks me is how willing we are in this "free" country to hand over our lives to two-bit politicians. Harrumph! John Parsons [Moderator's Note: To some writers today, I'll have plenty to say. To your post, which I specifically moved to the head of the queue, I can add only one word: Amen! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 04:45:06 GMT If the BOCs charged forty cents per hour it would be a good deal. The following is an excerpted table from , Decmber 31, 1990, comparing the cost per minute of different utility services. Utility service Cost per minute of use Residential phone service $0.03152 Residential electric service $0.001163 TV with cable service and VCR $0.0037 (includes power) It sounds like there is still alot of opportunity to lower the cost of communications. The use of IRS rules to determine whether a BBS is a business may be helpful, but the point should be whether the carrier is being compensated for its services fairly. Re: the "three years of five" rule from the IRS, I believe your accountant will tell you that it is only one of more than twelve alternative guidelines used to determining when a business is treated as a hobby, not when a hobby becomes a business. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 23:16 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates >Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local >service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part >because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves. >We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly >rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal. >Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message >units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans, >paying $20-30 per month! Well Pat, in 1981, I had call-pak unlimited, which I believe was the least of the unmeasured rate service classes available from Ill Bell Telco. In Evanston, it cost $42 and some change for that and POTS. I never used a modem or anything else on the phone except my voice, and yes, I had one month where I ran up over 10,000 message units. I made prodigous use of the phone, and I had a lot of friends in Waucaunda, Addison and Harvey (and a few calls to Sherman Skulnick :-D). That was the whole point of unlimited service. The phone company priced it so high that you really needed to ring up a couple thousand units before it paid for itself. A. Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: It is hard for me to remember the exact rates I was paying in 1981, but as I recall I had what was known as 'extended unlimited', meaning I got parts of 815 and *all* of 312. 'Unlimited service' -- as opposed to 'extended unlimited' -- got parts of 815 and most of 312, but there were a couple of coin-rated places in the far western area. There was another unlimited service which extended 28 miles in any direction from downtown Chicago. All the unlimited plans used downtown Chicago as their starting point, and they extended outward in circles. Suburban people living near the circle's edge got shafted. I was on the modem * a lot * in those days, running my two BBSs and calling others, etc. The break-even point between measured and the least comprehensive 'umlimited' plan was at 450 'units' per month. Over 450 units, you saved money and telco kept making money. Where telco started losing out was somewhere around 2000-3000 units. But assuredly not at 10,000 + units per month! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:17:55 GMT The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person >operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are >trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates >for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever >trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them >pay? Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to >trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? >What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people? PAT] One difference between BBSs and the other kinds of public-spirited operations you mention is that BBSs are a means of association as well as of communication. This implicates an additional Constitutional interest. The other services you mention do not -- for the most part -- create or constitute virtual communities. I have no trouble with Dial-A-Foobar services or counseling services paying business rates. Some kinds of services may, by virtue of government approval or subsidy, qualify for special exemptions to the business rate. The fact is that business rates for BBSs have the potential to drastically limit the formation of online virtual communities. In contrast, business rates don't have a corresponding effect on rape crisis centers, et al. The extra cost of paying business rates is far more often the threshold consideration when one decides to establish or maintain a BBS than it is when qone is deciding to establish a rape-crisis center. I think virtual communities should be encouraged, and I despair at contemplating a world in which such communities are operated only by rich individuals, corporations, or RBOCs. In answer to your last question, Pat: No, I don't think business rates should be charged for TTY-voice translators for deaf people. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation [Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual community is what you find important, it should be okay, and encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. And since the Compuserve 'CB Simulator' has hangers-on who I suspect do not logoff once in an entire weekend, and there have been entire wedding ceremonies on-line, and the users even come together for parties now and then, we'd have to say they have a virtual community also. So, Compuserve now gets residential rates, at least for the CB/Compusex mainframes, okay? Why not? Because they charge $12 per hour and the local sysop charges $10 per year if users can afford it? Should the 'encouragement of virtual communities' be the key? *Whose* community? Again I ask, why are BBS sysops different? PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 18:51:38 GMT Aimee Tweedie writes: >A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of >dedication, both financial and personal. So why should sysops have to >take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to >communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the >sysop's expense? Pat responds: >[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? Those other kinds of services you mention are *not* hobbies. Practically all BBSs *are*. >Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to >trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby? Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be charged business rates? What about point system(*) operators? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the sysop is doing: using a modem and computer to engage in electronic communication using the phone lines. Each uses precisely the same amount of phone company resources, so why should they not pay the same rates? In case anyone was wondering, yes, I am a BBS sysop. No, I do not charge any access fees, nor do I accept donations. If Illinois Bell decided to start charging me business rates, I would be forced to shut it down. For those who didn't know: (*) A point system is a sort of mini-BBS which has only one user, the sysop. A regular BBS (the "point boss") will bundle up new messages. Then the point system's software calls the BBS, downloads the new messages, and uploads any messages which the point operator has entered since the last exchange. A point system does everything (WRT the phone lines) as a full BBS does, with the sole exception of having dial-in users. Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who specifically solicit the public to call them **. Maybe telco should make new subscribers answer this question: "Will you solicit the public to call this telephone number through other than ordinary residential directory listings or occassional advertising of a personal nature?" If the answer is yes, then a 'non-personal-use' rate would apply; a rate we now call 'business service'. To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your telephone. Stamp collectors, basket weavers and gourmet cooks are also hobbyists. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 22:53:31 GMT Pat, I run a BBS from my bedroom. It's a Usenet node, and I'm dialled into it right now posting this article. It's not a 16-line chat system, or a for pay BBS, or anything. It's just a system I've set up to let my friends get access to Usenet. That phone line is in use a small fraction of the day ... mostly for my comp.dcom.telecom feed. Why should I pay business rates? If BBSes are such a heavy load on the system why was Southwestern Bell running the biggest BBS in Houston, SourceLine, until they decided that you couldn't run a BBS for profit? (and, I might add, it's apparent to most observors that SWBell decided to crack down on BBSes to get rid of competition in advance before putting SourceLine up ... I wonder what these other phone campanies have waiting in the wings?) As for measured rates, the marginal cost of a phone call is tiny. Why should that marginal cost become the dominant part of cost recovery? Particularly when SWBell's own advertisements and actions encourage more calls? What do you get in the envelope with *your* bill? I got a note saying they'd been overcharging and a credit on my bill. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates, and unless you go to telco on your knees and beg, it is doubtful you ever will pay business rates, provided your operation is what you say it is. I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other strangers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 17:07:25 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [much stuff about measured vs. unmeasured service deleted] Here in New York City, we have universal measured service. There are no flat-rate lines available at any price. However, modem users don't seem to suffer that much. Why? There are two main classes of service available. One is called "timed service" and is the classic type of measured service. This one costs a few bucks a month in overhead, and you then pay for all intra-LATA calls in a time- and distance-sensitive way. You are charged more for the first minute of each call. However, this option is used only by people who don't make many calls and don't have many $$$. The far more common option is "untimed service". With this service, calls within one's local calling area (there are seven such within the LATA) are counted but not timed. You pay a per-call charge of about $0.10 (less the usual kinds of evening and night discounts), no matter how long the call lasts. For New York City, the local calling area is the whole city; the other calling areas in the LATA are eastern and western Long Island and various upstate counties. Untimed service is available only to residential customers. BBSes are (implicitly) treated as residential by New York Telephone; at least, I have not heard of any problems for NYC sysops. The difference in the base monthly rate between timed and untimed service is only a few dollars; both include a calling allowance of $4. Is this compromise in use elsewhere? Should it be? [Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with? I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment. The really poor (financially) public services could use a break also. When you note that The Catholic Charities of Chicago has a phone bill of several *thousand* dollars per month, and that having that trimmed by even a couple thousand dollars per month through a special rate would mean a dozen more homeless people could stay off the street at night ... It seems obvious that we need new definitions for the types of service used these days. Maybe 'residence' and 'business' are no longer adequate rate categories. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #21 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07740; 11 Jan 91 1:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20065; 10 Jan 91 23:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27709; 10 Jan 91 22:46 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:22:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #22 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102222.ab00322@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:21:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Toby Nixon] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [John R. Levine] Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea [Nigel Allen] Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension? [Hugh D. Meier] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" [Sean Williams] Source of Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck] D4 Channel Banks [William Yurcik] Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bill Cerny] Eight-Digit Phone Numbers [Lee Bertagnolli] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 10 Jan 91 16:33:12 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA I just got back from a one-day trip to Washington DC. Both the trip up and the return were on one of Eastern's newly-upgraded 757s, with the huge first class cabin. Every seat in First Class has an Airfone imbedded right in the back of the seat immediately in front (the front row seats have the phone mounted on the bulkhead in front of them). As it turned out, we were required by an ATC computer outage to hold on the taxiway at National Airport for about 45 minutes. Being the nice husband that I am, I decided to call my wife and tell her that I'd be late for dinner. Quite a few other folks decided to place calls, too. Unlike the older Airfones with sort of a curved handset and little stubby antenna (cordless), these built-into-the-seat phones are rectanglar, and attach to the seatback by a cord that is obviously on a reel of some kind inside the seat. To release the phone from the seat, you press a credit card into a little vertical slot. All this does is depress a little mechanical hook, and the phone pops out. Several folks were initially confused by this, assuming that the slot in the seat was supposed to read their card, and got frustrated that the card wouldn't go all the way in. The flight attendants had clearly had to explain this to folks before, since they handled it nicely. The magnetic stripe reader is built into the side of the handset. Simply swipe the card through it. It DTMFs your card number to the control unit, apparently, since you can hear the tones in the background; you can go ahead and put the card back in your pocket (it doesn't retain the card like the older systems). I notice some folks having problems getting their cards to read, apparently because they were swiping them through too slowly. It doesn't say on the phone to do it FAST, but you need to. After reading your card and sending the info to the central controller, an awful digitized voice says "Thank you for using Airfone. Please wait for the dial tone." The first time I tried the call, I got the dial tone almost immediately; the second time (when a few other people were using phones), I had to wait a couple of minutes. When you get the dial tone, you punch in the number you're calling. The voice then says "Now processing your call; please wait." After a period of time (which also varied from a few seconds to a minute), the voice comes back on and reads you the number you dialed; I assume this happens while it is delivering the number to the PSTN, because almost immediately thereafter you start hearing ringbacks. On my first call, I got our answering machine. I used the telephone keypad to command the machine to play messages and a couple of other things, and it seemed to work fine (good news, since this means I could also use it to check voicemail at the office). I left a brief message, and hung up. This call was from the ground at National Airport. My second call was from the air, about 10 minutes outside of Atlanta airport. This time I got my wife on the phone. I had to TELL her that I was still on the plane; she told me that, except for a slight bit of background noise (wind noise, she said), the line was as clear as any payphone in the Atlanta airport. Anyway, that's my experience with the new Airfone system. It was very nice to be able to use my corporate AT&T Card instead of my American Express (as I'd had to do with Airfone before), because that way _I_ don't see the bill and _I_ don't have to account for it on an expense report! Nevertheless, it was also nice to read (on the instruction card) that they'd reduced the rates to $2 setup plus $2 per minute; really not bad at all. In article <15918@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more > sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where > someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone. If nothing else, the > physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to > passengers than bandwidth. This doesn't happen with the new system! You really do end up sitting there with the instrument on your ear, listening to dead silence. It would have been nice if there had been some repeated message to let you know that it hadn't gone dead. I did notice a couple of people give up in frustration; my guess was that they didn't realize they were having to condend with other passengers for circuits. It would be nice if the message explained the situation ( "all circuits now in use; please hold until a circuit is available" ). > (P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before > releasing the credit card? It sounds like a great way to exchange a > stolen credit card for a good one. Insert piece of junk, remove > handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door. The getaway > offers problems, though.) The older Airfones would not release the card if you tried to put the wrong phone back in a cradle. Your card was locked in place to make sure you didn't walk off with the phone, but at the same time your card was protected because nobody else could get to it unless they returned the right handset. Of course, this isn't an issue with the new system. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Jan 91 13:59:38 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15918@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments. >All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, ... I've been on planes with one or two phones in the front and another in the back, but the real telephonic traffic jams occur on the BOS - LGA - DCA shuttles. On those planes, there is a phone in the back of every middle seat in every row (except presumably the last.) These phones are lightweight plastic handsets with a retracting cord. You release the phone from the seat by sticking your card into a slot that flips a simple mechanical latch, then run your card through a slot that runs the length of the handset. The reception is a little better than on the cordless model, but the handset is so light and crummy that it's hard to press the earpiece to your ear firmly enough to block out all of the background noise. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 2:23:43 EST I saw the following ad in a Toronto newspaper, and I thought it might interest anyone who is tired of shovelling snow. Engineering Challenges in Papua New Guinea The Post and Telecommunication Corporation of Papua New Guinea needs qualified engineers to work on the National Five Year Plan to rebuild the Analogue Network into a Modern Digital Network. We need qualified engineers who can work on the following * Digital Transmission Radio - (VHF, UHF, and BHF) * Digital Switching - Particularly with regard to Bell System 12. [Note from NDA: I think this really means Alcatel's (formerly ITT's) System 12.] * Power Electronics - (UPS) * Data Transmission Customers Equipment and network design The skills you need are: Project Management, Systems Design and Specification, Advanced Maintenance Skills (Installation and Commissioning). In particular, we are looking for engineers who possess management experience and can demonstrate a proven rack record in this area. Age is no barrier - we are looking for high achievers with relevant experience. For further information contact Mrs. Doreen Brew on + (675) 274 172 or fax + (675) 274 628. Please send resume to: Mrs. D. Brew, C/Knightway House, 20 Soho Square, London W1A 1DS, United Kingdom. [Note from NDA: It's interesting that the PNG Post and Telecommunication Corp. is hiring people itself, rather than relying on the international consulting arm of a telephone company, such as Bell Canada International.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 15:41:28 EST From: "Hugh D. Meier" Subject: Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension? I have a Dimension 2000 (FP8) that I want to get rid of. (I also have a System 75). I am interested in selling the whole thing, or just the cards, or just the cabinets, etc. Has anyone any experience doing this? I think Farmstead and the likes would be interested, but do they come and dismantle and take away? Are there any other companies that you know of? I will forward a summary of replies that come directly to me: HUGH@BROWNVM.brown.edu Thanks! Hugh Meier ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 9 15:51:14 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Joe Francis writes: | I find slamming annoying and deceitful. How often does this happen? | This happened to me in Boston under New England Tel. I was using | AT&T and suddenly received an MCI bill. I refused to pay it and | told them to switch [me] back to AT&T. I had just the opposite happen to me. When my mother and I moved into our new house we were assigned to AT&T as our primary carrier. We received a ballot sent to us by our local phone company, United Telephone of Pennsylvania. We selected MCI from the ballot and returned it to the phone company. Several weeks passed, and we began receiving mail from MCI thanking us for choosing them as our new carrier. However, we still received bills from AT&T, and when we called the 1-700-555-4141 verification number we heard an AT&T recording. We contacted MCI, and their records showed us as being MCI subscribers. The MCI representative told me that she would contact United Telephone the next day about the problem. I received a message on my voicemail the next afternoon from my MCI representative. She told me that United Telephone was very rude to her, and that United told her that *I* would have to call them. (This was obviously United's attempt to make sure I really had selected MCI.) I called United immediately, and asked them why they were rude to my MCI representative. The man on the phone apologized to me, and said that their records showed that I *had* been connected to MCI for several weeks. He said that there must have been a programming error and he contacted repair service about the problem. I was on MCI the next day. There were contradictions in what each company told me, but everything worked out as planned in the end. But this raises a few questions: 1) When I chose MCI on the ballot, was I actually connected? 2) If I was, did AT&T then tell United I changed my mind and I should be reconnected to AT&T? 3) Was there really a programming error, or was United just trying to protect me? Interestingly enough, a few days after we were connected to MCI, AT&T began calling my house. They were trying to get us back, and they asked why we left. According to my mother, they were quite forceful at times, but I guess that's just how salespeople can be sometimes. I have nothing at all against AT&T. As you can see, I use AT&T Mail as my primary connection to the electronic information world, and I happily use AT&T's new Voicemark(sm) Messaging service, although MCI has a comparable messaging system now available. Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 18:25:59 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Saw some made-for-TV movie the other night about a husband and wife CIA team. The most noticable prop at the "headquarters" were red and blue phones without dials. These would be nice to have as extension phones (no dials for kiddies to mess with) as well as interesting props (fool your neighbors into thinking you are a spook!). Anyone know a good source? I assume they are a dime a dozen? Please reply to this group or E-mail. Thanks. Paul W. Schleck pschleck@alf.unomaha.edu Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 8 Jan 1991 16:32:47 EST From: William Yurcik Subject: D4 Channel Banks I am looking for help with the following questions: (1) I am looking for any documents that give specifications for D4 Channel Banks. (2) What vendors sell D4 channel banks? Thank you in advance for your help. You can post to the list or respond to me directly using byurcik@mitre.org. [Any opinions are my own and not representative of my employer.] William ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA Date: 9 Jan 91 20:26:43 PST (Wed) From: Bill Cerny This fiber cut affected a private line at a client's site. The IEC is Williams Telecom; but I don't know which company owns this particular fiber cable: Sprint or WilTel. The "treaty" between IEC's that you alluded to is called a protection agreement, and has become commonplace in the long distance industry. When two IEC's networks pass through a common point, they arrange some type of interconnection to provide capacity (multiples of DS-3) to the other in the event of an outage on the other carrier's network. It's "I'll scratch your back..." kind of business, and is being invoked on an increasing frequency as carriers rely more heavily on fiber, and backhoes continue to proliferate. ;-) I'm not sure how "automatic" these protection agreements are though. I inferred from Monday's outage that even in extremis, there's a bit of bureaucracy involved in activating the protection route(s). Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Lee Bertagnolli Subject: Eight-Digit Phone Numbers Date: 10 Jan 91 05:06:26 GMT Reply-To: Lee Bertagnolli Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois I work for a company that handles payments for some of the various Ameritech companies. One of my recent charges has been to develop a mechanized agent collection system on PC's. The object is to put a PC at the agent's office devoted to the task of collecting phone bills. Said PC will be equipped with an OCR scanner, capable of reading the scan line at the top of the payment stub. In setting up the scanners and software, I have noticed that on the newer Illinois and Indiana Bell payment stubs that there are *four* digits for the prefix rather than three. Although on the samples I have seen (including my own Illinois Bell phone bill) the lead digit has been a zero, I do not believe that this is a filler digit, but has been put there for expansion purposes. Would anyone care to comment on this? Lee Bertagnolli Voice: (217) 529-0359 West Lake Computers Data: (217) 529-0261 34 Hazel Lane UCP: {uunet}!pallas!lbert359 Springfield, Illinois 62703 Internet: lbert359@athenanet.com [Moderator's Note: I think the intention is to use that as an area code indication for billing purposes, i.e. 2=312, 5=815, 7=217, 8=708, 9=309, 1=618, etc. I'm not positive. There was some discussion awhile back about how (once 708 kicked in) 'they now have more than one ending in 8 ... and what adjustments had to be made in the software.' Ameritech would not make such a drastic change (four digit prefixes) without *lots* of consultation with other telcos, etc. I'm sure it would be common news if it were planned. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #22 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09278; 11 Jan 91 2:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16279; 11 Jan 91 0:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20065; 10 Jan 91 23:51 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #23 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102255.ab19505@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Michael C Nelson] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Colum Mylod] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Jeff Wasilko] ISDN to DDN, How? [battle@umbc3.umbc.edu] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Jon Sreekanth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 07:13:22 EST From: Michael C Nelson Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am posting this for soemone who has no posting capabilities, so please reply to him, not to me. M. Nelson In article <15886@accuvax.nwu.eokdu>, hm@fwi.uva.nl writes: > In article <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ralph Moonen writes: > [about he Dutch phone system] 002 - speaking clock 003 - weather forecast > Not anymore. They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990. > They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call. > When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an > ``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international > calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is > this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? Well, you are right of course, but the old numbers still work. They have not yet been disconnected. BTW, the alternative routing to these services still work for some old 00x services. This works as follows: Dial for 00x: 0yz01-1xx where yz = the two digits identifying the Telecom District. So, to call 008 in the place Leeuwarden, you would call 05101-188. This works for all Telecom districts, except Utrecht. (ID: 34) > >001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the > > 06-041x range. > Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular > non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. True, but it will become toll-free in the near future. (Also from a payphone.) (Replies should go to:) Ralph Moonen rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com (+31) 2155-24356 ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Date: 10 Jan 91 13:55:14 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe In article <15886@accuvax.nwu.edu> hansm@cs.kun.nl writes in response to the article from <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an >``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international >calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is >this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? It's an EC-recommendation. The idea is to try to standardize some codes across Europe. The European PTTs are not obliged to standardize on 00 for IDD, but as most countries use 00 already, some of the others are changing. The Dutch PTT will eventually, once current 00 users are moved. Telecom Eireann use 16 for IDD but 00 now also works in the Dublin area, though they haven't announced it. >>001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the >> 06-041x range. >Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. 0011 was the emergency number only in the Brabant and Gelderland provinces. This was a test to see if the one uniform number would be an improvement on the myriad collection of numbers that were in use and which few people knew in their own area, and no-one knew outside their own area. It was considered a success, so they opted for a national simple number, and 0611 was it. However the EC has decided on 112 for a standard emergency number, which would be inconvient in Holland as local numbers begin with "1". > Like a regular non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. And what a shame this is. Profit made from misery. It's free in most countries, so saving someone rummaging in pockets for a coin to call from public phones. The PTT's excuse is charging reduces false calls. And can I just say that all Amsterdam numbers (+31-20 code) will be seven-digit from 1 March 1991. Prepend 6 to six-digit numbers beginning with "2". Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO [Moderator's Note: Emergency calls (911 in the USA) are *not* free. Usually the charge is automatically reversed to the receiver of the call, i.e. the emergency agency, much like an 800 call, but without the additional digits dialed. *Someone* always pays for 911 calls: telco does not handle them for free. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 01:36:24 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers Thanks a lot for the information in RoamingAmerica. I look forward to trying out some of the codes the next time I'm out-of-state. The odd thing is, there hasn't been a peep from Cellular One that this new service exists or is available. I ran into it completely by accident. But they did know about it when I called. You'd think that there would have been some mention in the newsletter, wouldn't you? ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 00:49:40 EST Subject: RE: New Roaming System for A Carriers RoamingAmerica isn't new by any means. The network was fairly large when I still worked at Cellular One here in Rochester. In April of last year, I wrote a fairly in-depth of the workings of RoamingAmerica. It follows a few answers: Steve Forrette wrote: > - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco), >in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or >no-answer transfer you have enabled. Cellular One admitted that this It really isn't a bug. It stems from the switches different classes of service. When RoamingAmerica fowards your number to the trunk that will play the announcement describing how to reach you, it will change your call forwarding to forward to the correct trunk. If you had call forwarding set, it's current state is saved, and then restored after RoamingAmerica is cancelled. If the switch has multiple call-forwarding options, (such as forward on busy/no-answer and immediate forward), RomaingAmerica makes the change to the class that has higher precedence. >cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" >carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you >place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off >(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it >working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No >Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Check out the *300 *310 *320 star codes in my article. As long as your cellular company has chose to implement them, they should work. If they haven't, call 'em up and scream at em (-;. If all else fails, you can be removed from the Roaming America database by calling either: 1. Your home cellular company (they should have a 800-number for Roaming America trouble calls). 2. The foreign cellular company. Either company should be able to remove you from the RoamingAmerica database temporarily or permanently if the *3x0 codes don't work. Jeff | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.| Here is a description of RoamingAmerica, the nationwide roaming system that is used by the majority of the non-wireline carriers. ................ APPEX Corporation's RoamingAmerica System has been operating successfully in over ten cities for several months. The carriers operating in these markets have been offering RoamingAmerica to their entire subscriber base. More than a dozen markets are scheduled to receive RoamingAmerica service in the next couple of months. {The number of participating cites is much higher now.} RoamingAmerica provides both Transparent Call Forwarding (TCF) and Caller Notification services. Transparent Call Forwarding enables a subscriber to receive incoming calls while roaming in a foreign area by conditionally transferring these calls from the subscriber's home switch to the serving Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA). Caller Notification allows a roamer to have the incoming call conditionally transferred to a voice announcement on the home switch. The announcement tells the calling party what city the roamer is in and provides instructions (including long distance phone number for the foreign switch's roamer access port) for calling the roamer on the foreign system. RoamingAmerica provides several methods by which subscribers can activate RoamingAmerica services. Carriers can elect to have their subscribers activate the system by placing a call from a foreign market. Alternatively, carriers can elect to have subscribers explicitly activate and deactivate the system by dialing 'star' codes. It is even possible to combine these methods so that a subscriber is activated by placing a call, and yet can explicitly deactivate or change service by dialing a star code. RoamingAmerica is very flexible in this respect, and can be easily customized to fit a carrier's specific needs. The start codes that RoamingAmerica uses are: *31: Activate TCF *310: Deactivate TCF *32: Activate CN *320: Deactivate CN *300: Deactivate All RoamingAmerica Service To implement the above features, RoamingAmerica uses the stream of call set-up data from the PRV port {PRV stands for Positive Roamer Verification, the system that the majority of the non-wireline carriers use for subscriber validation.} on the serving cellular switch to initiate the automatic roamer registration and activate the roamer's call transfer. On switches that provide the dialed digits as part of this information, the star codes can be detected in this manner. For switches that do not provide the dialed digits to the PRV system, APPEX has developed the APPEX Voice Response System (AVRS), which enables explicit activation and deactivation of RoamingAmerica services. The AVRS also provides the voice storage and retrieval system for caller notification. When RoamingAmerica detects that a subscriber is requesting activation of RoamingAmerica service, the system checks the NPA/NXX of the roamer's phone to identify the roamer's home switch. It determines if the home system is a RoamingAmerica participant, and if the home system's subscribers are to receive RoamingAmerica service in this particular foreign market. Last of all, it determines what type of service the subscriber has chosen to receive. In parallel with the above activity, APPEX's PRV system performs a check of the APPEX National Negative file and performs a positive validation check on the subscriber. If the subscriber has not been validated on the switch within 24 hours, an inquiry is performed on the home switch to verify that he is active and has good credit. In addition, PRV performs a MIN/ESN mismatch check to detect fraudulent cellular phones. If any of these validation procedures fail, the subscriber's RoamingAmerica service is immediately aborted and deactivated. Meanwhile, if the subscriber has chosen to activate transparent call forwarding, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the serving switch directing it to assign a temporary number to the roamer and insert this number into the the serving switch's database. The temporary number is assigned from a block of temporary numbers that have been reserved on the switch to serve roamers. When RoamingAmerica receives confirmation that the serving switch has assigned the temporary number to the roamer, it sends a command to the roamer's home switch directing it to deactivate any existing call forwarding and to establish a conditional call forwarding {forward on no-answer/busy} to the temporary number assigned by the foreign switch. If the subscriber has chosen to activate caller notification, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the home switch directing it to conditionally transfer the subscriber to a contrived phone number that consists of two parts: the routing prefix and the switch code identifier. The routing code is common to all numbers used in caller notification, whereas the switch code varies depending on the foreign market in which the subscriber is currently located. When an incoming call is received, it is transferred to this number. The routing prefix directs the switch to route this call to the trunk group that connects the switch to the AVRS, and outpulse the switch code identifier portion of the number. The switch code identifier tells the AVRS which message to play back to the calling party. If a subscriber does not explicitly deactivate the system as described above, RoamingAmerica will deactivate his service X hours after his most recent call was placed form the foreign market. This time span is referred to as the cancellation time, and can be set on a per carrier basis. When a roamer registers successfully on RoamingAmerica in a particular serving system, he stays registered and continues to receive incoming calls that are forwarded to his temporary number until one of the following events occur: 1. The roamer fails to place a call at least once during the cancellation time interval. 2. The RoamingAmerica operations staff manually deactivates the roamer. 3. The roamer dials one of the deactivation codes in any system. Deactivation will only occur from his home system if the home system provides an AVRS system. 4. The roamer goes to another foreign system and places a call, thereby registering in the new foreign system (and terminating his registration in the previous foreign system), or 5. The roamer fails any PRV validation check on any roamer call he places while active on RoamingAmerica. Whenever RoamingAmerica is deactivated, the subscriber's originally call forwarding and call transfer settings are retrieved from the system's internal database, and restored on the home switch. RoamingAmerica consists of application software that runs in a VAX/VMS environment and uses the existing APPEX national network {packet-switched} for communicating to switches across the country. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:24:57 EST From: Rick Subject: ISDN to DDN, How? Does any one know of any equipment which will allow an ISDN connection to the DDN (Defense Data Network) either X.25 or TCP/IP? Thanks much, Rick ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 10 Jan 91 08:55:37 In article <15852@accuvax.nwu.edu> mitel!Software!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps. I have a Uniden phone that I bought around 1986, and it has a three position switch : DTMF, 10pps pulse, 20pps pulse. I've not had any problems using 20pps in CA and MA (but in well populated suburban areas). Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway? I understand it's still widely used outside North America. On this topic, why do many voice mail and other phone operated services insist on users having DTMF phones ? Is it really hard to detect pulse mode digits? I can see that the low numbers might be a problem, (can't distinguish it from a noise pulse), but if one saw five to ten regularly spaced pulses, isn't that adequate for recognition? I've seen AT&T answering machines which say on the box that they work with pulse phones (at the remote end, for checking one's messages). I haven't played with them. Does anyone know how they work, or how reliable the detection is ? Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com [Moderator's Note: The old Unitel (United Airlines) internal phone network was able to recognize pulse dialing on the in-dial to their call-extender here several years ago. Don't ask me how they did it. I did note at the time that tone signals were more reliable. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #23 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09323; 11 Jan 91 2:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16279; 11 Jan 91 0:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae20065; 10 Jan 91 23:51 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #24 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102346.ab17500@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Louis Linneweh] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John R. Levine] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Jim Rees] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Lars Poulsen] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Todd Inch] Re: What are Secure Lines? [dag@cup.portal.com] Calls To and From Japan [David Gast] TEHO in UK [Benny Lebovits] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10-JAN-1991 05:19:09.86 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Hi- In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu>, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: When roaming in a foreign system: > ...[S]omeone has to dial into the roamer port, then > enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are > calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, > whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point > the secondary dialtone is provided. > Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby > the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the > supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? I'm by no means an expert on DID, but I can tell you that there WERE many ports that did NOT return supervision, although few, if any, remain. For example, Cell One/San Francisco, until maybe mid-July this summer (1990) did NOT return supervision until the called mobile party answered. When they changed this, I called them to find out why, and they told me: "Oh, so customers can press the "#" button down if they make a mistake when dialing in the number. Otherwise, when you call with a Calling Card, you will be disconnected." Quite true, but I don't think this is the reason. I recall discussion on the Digest about this in perhaps late-1987 to early-1988. From what I gathered, AT&T used to allow this sort of signalling to go through. IE, the talk path would be open BOTH ways, even before supervision was returned. Thus, a caller calling a roam port (or anything else, like an automated PBX attendant which accepted Touch Tones), would hear the dial tone, AND be able to Touch Tone in the desired mobile number. When the mobile answered, supervision was returned, a billing for the call commenced. If the mobile was unavailable, then no supervision would be returned, and the caller would not be billed for the call to the roam port. However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?) toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch tones) UNTIL supervision was returned. That is so say, TWO-way conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or whatever). I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this, although a few were presented. Some mobile systems didn't seem to realize this. For example, Cell One/South Jersey (New Jersey) used to have non-supervising ports at 201-715-7626 and I think the other was 609-575-7626. In the Spring on 1990, they changed the numbers (why I don't know), to 908-610-7626. This new 908 port worked the same way the old ones did, ie, did not return supervision UNTIL the called party actually answered. Yet for some reason, the new port worked under the "new" AT&T "rules" (no callING to callED party conversation until supervision), so if you called via AT&T, you COULD NOT ENTER *ANY* TONES! Callers in New Jersey for the most part were fine, as NJ Bell doesn't seem to care about supervision. Also, callers over MCI and Sprint didn't notice this, either, as they appear to work differently than AT&T. It was VERY difficult to convince Cell One/South Jersey that *I* was correct that their port was "not working", since each time they called in locally (via NJ Bell, not AT&T) it worked just fine! And they even had MCI (their LD co, it seems) call them to try it out, and MCI reported no trouble. I finally had to three-way them to let them hear what was going on. Eventually, they changed the port to automatically return supervision. This sort of spoiled it for non-AT&T customers, ie, those coming in over NJ Bell or some non-AT&T LD Co. Previously, they could access the port for free, unless, of course, the mobile was active and answered the phone. Now, all calls are billed, regardless of an answer. The Cell One/South Jersey port covers a wide area (DMX), from New York City's Metro One system, to North Jersey (Metro One), to South Jersey/Trenton (Cell One), to Atlantic City/Vinland (Cell One), to Phil (Metrophone) and Wilmington, DE, (again, Cell One.) Thus, the port was quite useful to me, as I could tell people to call me at ONE roam port, and I could be reached from all of lower New York all the way down to about 20 miles north of Baltimore, where the DC system takes over. Now, since I may very well not be available, I don't want people to keep trying to and paying for each call, which they wouldn't have had to do otherwise. In any event, it seems that such systems are fading quickly as they are replaced by newer ports that appear to be subjected to the "new" AT&T supervision rules. I'd like to hear about any ports that still work the "old" way, and of course, any corrections on my rather sketchy description of AT&T's switching system. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Louis Linneweh Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Date: 10 Jan 91 23:47:46 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then >enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are >calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, >whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point >the secondary dialtone is provided. Some suppliers of cellular switches do allow the system operator to configure the ROAM trunk group to delay answer supervision until the called party (or the voice message system or the party to which the call was transfered) answers. However, if the call is delivered by an Inter-Lata carrier, the carrier may not cut through the forward audio path (from caller to called) until answer supervision is received as a method of fraud prevention. This would prevent the End-to-End DTMF from being received by the cellular system. Therefore, the cellular operator must configure most incoming trunk groups for immediate answer supervision since the source of the call is normally not known. When the cellular system operator has a sufficiently sophisticated (read "large") operation, they may be able to separate the incoming traffic on unique trunk groups (such as with direct connections to the offending IC) so that only those networks that require immediate answer supervision get it. From the carrier's point of view the caller reached the destination that was requested (the ROAM port) and they feel justified in getting paid. Certainly, business arrangements could be reached between a cellular operator and the carriers to avoid this problem if it was of sufficient importance. >Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby >the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the >supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? US >Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system, >overcoming any technical or legal hurdles. You enter the called >number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place. Cellular service providers are at the wrong end of the connection, i.e. after the IC has done its thing, in the situation that causes concern. In the case of a FONcard, the cost of the call to the carrier will be paid for by the carrier as soon as the carrier connects. >I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem >are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of >roamers from other systems. But whatever happened to just wanting to >do it right for the sake of it? It seems that especially cellular >carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime >revenues. I'm sure something would be worked out if the cellular operator's customers thought it was important enough to take their business elsewhere. The real "right thing" will only happen when the carrier enters the process of finding the mobile (instead of being done when the ROAM port is reached). ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Jan 91 13:53:50 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15874@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest? Why not? My entry is the cell on Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. Apparently boats 100 miles away can use it due to the excellent ground provided by salt water that the fact that Tortola has a fairly high hill on which the antenna is placed. Perhaps some cell with an antenna on a higher hill on another island is even bigger. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: When I was visiting in Independence, KS this past summer I had my Radio Shack CT-301 with me. In most areas of town there was no cellular service, yet when I went to the second floor of the home where I was visiting, the phone went out of NO SVC mode into ROAM mode. Curious, I tried the 0 operator, and ask who she was: Tulsa, OK -- sixty plus miles to the south! Returning home on I-55, Ameritech only guarentees service when you get 'close to' Morris, IL, the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... see why I don't concern myself with the exact specifics of the antenna I use? Admittedly, I had the 'standard' antenna for a handheld, not the little 1/8 wave loaded stub I installed a month or so ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 18:49:35 GMT In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: > this applies to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of > Scandinavia ... >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black): - 10 vac for the dial light in older Princess(tm) and Trimline(tm) phones. - Off-hook indication for key sets. - Ring voltage for party lines. - Ground on the yellow wire for shielded twisted pair. - Second line for two-line phones. Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use? ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:37:41 GMT In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: >[Telephones built for US] will work [in Sweden]. ... >However, a few things to keep in mind: >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. What do they put ON the second pair? A reference ground for ground-start lines? A signalling hookswitch closure? Most *consumer* units that have the second pair connected these days would expect to find a second line there!! Surely that is not what Televerket expects? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Sat, 05 Jan 91 09:56:07 GMT In article <15649@accuvax.nwu.edu> PAT writes that the # button is often the telephone equivalent of a "return key", and: >There is no >reason people couldn't be trained to stick it on the end of all >dialing as a signal they are finished. Then, *any combination* could >be a local number, no? PAT] Sounds good, but this couldn't happen until tone dialing becomes mandatory and networks are no longer compelled to support pulse dialing. Anybody heard when that might happen? I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? (Remember: Do your kids know how to dial a rotary phone for emergencies?) Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: dag@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 18:41:32 PST lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: >In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu> astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe >Broniszewski) writes: >>I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff >>mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government >>agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on >>one of these secure lines. >I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for >the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. >STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch >to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls. Cliff worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) at the time. LBL is frequently confused with Lawrence Livermore Labs (LLNL), and although they work closly on many projects they are definately two different beasts. I worked in the office next to Cliff for a couple of years and I can assure you that neither of us had or wanted any special phone lines other than the standard unsecured, government issue FTS lines. I do recall hearing of a special phone line at one point but I believe there was only one of 'em at the whole lab. I have no idea where it is, and I doubt if Cliff would know about it. LLNL on the other hand is crawling with spooks and special phone lines. Cheers, dag ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:18:59 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Calls To and From Japan Whenever I call Japan, I cannot help but notice the poor quality on the line. It does not seem to matter if I am calling via AT&T, MCI, or Sprint except that Sprint cut me off. (Past tense on purpose). Whenever I recieve a call from Japan, I cannot help but notice how clear everything sounds. I just received a call and it sounded as if the person was in the same room. Truely remarkable as many of my local calls do not sound this clear. Do you think GTE has special processing for calls from Japan? :-) David Gast ------------------------------ From: Benny Lebovits Subject: TEHO in UK Date: 10 Jan 1990 Organization: Intel Electronics, Ltd I am working on a network design that is considering hubbing out of the UK. Can anyone tell me whether TEHO (tail end hop off) or off-net dialling is legal in the UK. I have received conflicting reports. Through hearsay, Mercury has told one curtomer that it is legal. I have read a magazine article that indicates lots of people are doing it. Yet Intel's man on the spot claims it's illegal and that he needs a permit to hook up any new equipment to the network. Any ideas as to how I can get a definitive ruling? Benny ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #24 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11529; 11 Jan 91 4:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17838; 11 Jan 91 3:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22118; 11 Jan 91 2:00 CST Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 1:25:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #25 BCC: Message-ID: <9101110125.ab28675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jan 91 01:24:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Addresses for Recorded 900 Solicitors [Douglas Scott Reuben] Information Needed on 900 Regulations [Emmanuel Goldstein] Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access? [Floyd Vest] Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [Carl Wright] Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Dave Burke] Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Toby Nixon] Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [John Stanley] Emergency Re-Routing [J. Philip Miller] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Chris Johnson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Date: 10-JAN-1991 03:56:00.47 Subject: Addresses for Recorded 900 Solictors Pat asked that I post the addresses that I got from NY Tel, so here they are. [In case - (Heaven forbid! :) ) - you missed my initial posting, these are the addresses that the Telco actually sends the bills to for those 900/976/local prefix for special features firms. Typically, they try to induce people to call them with recorded solicitations, such as: "Hi, I'm Jeff, and I've got a prize for you! So call me back at 900-555-1111 within the next 10 minutes, and see what I've got for you. 717EJerichoTpkeHuntingtonStaNY11746,fitftydollarsperminute . So call me now and see what you've won!" ] "The New 9999 Line" - 540-9999 in NY Tel's NY Metro area. The address they give (locally) is: 717 E. Jericho Turnpike Huntington Sta, NY 11746 Their billing address: The New 9999 Line 3702 South Virginia Ave Reno, NV 89503. (The person who signed my certified mail card signed "C.T." ... couldn't write the full name out, eh? ) 900-999-0100 (?) and locally 540-0100. (They called my machine, and mentioned both. The 900 number was poorly recorded, so maybe it is 900-909? I dunno. The 540 number is definitely correct.) The Eagleton Group 561 Keystone Ave, Box 305 Reno, NV, 89503 These are the addresses that I got a response from, so I KNOW they are valid. Additionally, I got a call from some Hawaiian vacation 900 number, but since I am quite careless at times, I didn't write the address or # down as an additional note to myself for reference purposes. When the certified mail (green) card comes back, I'll post it if anyone cares. For those of you who wish to call NY Tel to get addressess for firms who are bothering you, call NY Tel's call annoyance # at: 800-522-1122. I think this will work from out of NY state; it did from CT. You may also call the NY Tel Executive offices (1095 6th Ave, NYC) at (212) 395-2121. They were the actual people who told me the number, after I spoke to the Annoyance number. The rep. I spoke with was Mrs. Gordon, and her supervisor is Mrs. O'Mally. I don't know how many of these calls NYTel gets, so they may not be too familiar with the process (as demonstrated by their telling me to call the FCC!). But if you keep at it, they will give you the addresses. Maybe mention me, I'm sure they (a) couldn't care less, or (b) will hang up on you. :) It took a while for me to make my case to them, but it did ultimately work. If you don't want to spend time yelling at these people over the phone, send me the number that is bothering you, IF you get these calls on a NY Tel line. I have to call them soon anyhow for more annoying numbers, and may as well get a few more addresses (if I can) while I am at it. I'd also be interested to know what similar experiences (if any) people have had with their telcos in their attempts to do the same thing. Good luck! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail, probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:41:16 pst From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Information Needed on 900 Regulations Can someone post a rough translation of the FCC laws regarding 900 service? What I'm interested in primarily are regulations concerning announcement of charges, ANY rules for billing, and other items to protect the public from fraud. Thanks. [Moderator's Commandments: 1) Thou shalt read thy charge-per-call rapidly in a slurred voice. 2) Thou shalt operate behind mail drop services in far-away places. 3) Thou shalt refuse to respond to telco billing complaints/chargebacks. 4) If a customer refuses payment to telco, and telco charges it back to thee, then thou shalt forward it to a sleazy collection agency. 5) Thou shalt keep moving thy boiler-room from one location to another, a step ahead of the Postal Inspector; but preferably keep it in the midwest USA where WATS rates are the least expensive. 6) Thou shalt honor thy father and mother by trying to program your computer to not call their phone; but if you can't, that's okay, don't worry about it. They'll have to live with it. 7) Thou shalt not take the name of thy guardian angel, Harold Greene in vain. Thou art welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Vest Subject: Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access? Date: 10 Jan 91 02:20:45 CST I have a friend that is a service provider for a third-party "900" service. This not a sleeze operation. He is editor of a sports magazine and offers a "hotline" for sports news updates. The service has been very well received. He recently learned (and I not sure of the reliability of his information) that the Alabama Public Service Commission is proposing to remove 900-service access from all phones in the state unless explicitly requested. Since the major appeal of his service is in-state this would probably force him to drop the service. My question is this: since the number terminates out-of-state, does the APSC have the authority to restrict interstate calling? If not, what can my friend do? He does not have the resources (and the service is not profitable enough) to engage any legal action or protracted appeals. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:22:59 GMT In article <15922@accuvax.nwu.edu> The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical >termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone >else picks it up), or where they bill it out to. IBT now blocks all >calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not. >They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no* >variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976 >or 900 blockade, period. PAT] Might you be able to reach a 976 number with 950-1022 to get into MCI or by dialling "10222#" and then dialing the 976 number in another area code? I guess that IBT can't be expected to block these since they never hear the tones. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [Moderator's Note: IBT doesn't hear the tones, but MCI sure does! Calls via 10222 or 950-1022 here to an anywhere-976 number return an intercept saying 'at the present time, MCI does not connect with 976 numbers.' Sprint is the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 08:29:00 GMT+109:13 From: "VAXA::DBURKE" Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Responding to "hpa" : Your local Radio Shack has a box called Teleprotector (registered trademark) R.S. P/N 43-107 for $7.95. Just put one on the modem, and a second one on the telephone. It will then be first-come, first-serve. AutoLine+ from ITS communications in N.Y. will do lockout and distinctive ringing. The box works well. If you need the phone # for ITS, respond directly and I'll dig it out. Dave ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Date: 10 Jan 91 15:33:48 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15894@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) asks about a distinctive ringing-based call director that can also keep the attached devices from interrupt each others' calls. My understanding is that the "RingDirector/4" box supports not only distinctive ringing direction of incoming calls to specific ports on the device (up to four numbers), but also handles exclusion (keeps a device, once off-hook, from having its calls interrupted by another). It wouldn't hurt to call the company and find out. The manufacturer is Lynx Automation, 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood WA 98036; +1 206 744 1582. The device costs $149. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. From: John Stanley Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:41:40 EST judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951) writes: > We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently. > Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables > being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is > being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes. Tuesday evening, about 4:10, the local PBS station lost the feed for a program called "Fresh Air". After a few minutes, they came back, using a poor quality phone feed. At the end of the show, we were told that the problem was caused by a break in a fiber cable between New York and Philly. I don't know if they get the feed in real time, but would guess that they must if they put up with the poor feed just to carry the show. YACC (Yet Another Cable Cut)? ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Emergency Re-Routing Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:20:18 CST > [Moderator's Note: >.... Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having > their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and > from each other. This reminds me of a question that I have had for some time. Does AT&T now do the reverse? One of the reasons that I ask, is that near my house (in the 1900 block of Chouteau) is a bunker type building which was (at least since the divesture) labeled as an AT&T facility. A couple of years ago there was the laying of a major fiber cable under major streets in St. Louis and leading to this facility. Several months ago, I noticed that now the bunker is labeled as belonging to Sprint. What is going on here? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:23:03 GMT In article <15827@accuvax.nwu.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its >design and development. When, as is most often the case in Western >societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless >corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public >for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity. I >appreciate Mr. Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples >of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation >congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic >performance among students -- are insupportable. BART has complicated >the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it. And educational ... >democratic. I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as >it is of we technologists' experiments with its world. While this is straying from the topic of telecommunications, and into the politics of technology and more, I can't sit by and let Mr. Jacobson remain unanswered in his indictment of technologists. First and foremost, it might be that techonology is invented by seemingly faceless corporations and technologists within, but it is the business end of such organizations that "foist" those products upon the public. In other words, the fact that every community has a video-rental store as a "result" of the invention of the VCR, or that Compact Disks have virtually eliminated the vinyl LP, has a lot less to do with the invention of the technology and a lot more to do with marketing, advertising, and business ideas for making money in general. If record companies did not see a great potential profit to be made, and did not push the Compact Disk in the market place, you can bet it would be relegated to the rare ranks of the high-end audio affecionado. For example, just where is Digital Audio Tape (DAT) these days? It's invented. It works. You can even buy it! But the record companies are all opposed to it because they are greedy and can't see a way to make a good profit from it. As a result, it's a pretty rare thing. I have two compact disk players. I have zero DAT decks. This only reinforces the idea that technological innovations are only tools, and it's the use to which they are put which makes all the difference. I also take issue with Mr. Jacobson's remarks about such things as BART. He claims it complicates the Bay Area transportation situation. Perhaps. But if BART disappeared tomorrow, the transportation situation would be a whole hell of a lot more complicated. It has a huge daily ridership. And from my experience, the Bay Area has one of the better mass-transit systems in the country, precisely because of the integration and variety of types: busses, trains, and BART. I'm not as aware of the circumstances in Washington D.C. (having left that area just before the Metro opened), but everything I've ever heard about the system there was praise of the highest sort, even from people who were regular riders of other subway systems in the U.S. and even abroad. It's also my opinion that Mr. Jacobson's remarks about educational uses of technology are taking problems out of their context. The educational institutions of this country have a lot problems, and most of them are sociological in nature and very interrelated. Whether or not technology will be able to help solve those problems in a dramatic way, versus in a minor way (which I am sure they will) is yet to be seen. Lack of use of available technology in schools hardly points to a fault in the technology itself, however. I'd say a pretty strong case could be made that we have one of the best telephone systems in the world, also because of the technology that built it. Perhaps Mr. Jacobson is not as much a luddite as my response is making him sound. But I want to bring the focus on technology issues to where the decisions should be and are presently being made as to whether the new inventions bring the society good. Those places are political (public policies, eg. do we want to encourage nationwide networks?) and business (marketing and selling, eg. how can we use this new invention to make money, versus how will selling this new invention affect society?). Technologists frequently have ideas in mind for uses of their inventions that are nothing like how the general public ends up seeing them. Should technologists stop creating new things unless they have that control? Or just stop in general, for fear they may be misused or have adverse affects (particulary since the societal affects are impossible to predict)? I don't think so. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #25 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12736; 11 Jan 91 5:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24868; 11 Jan 91 4:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17838; 11 Jan 91 3:04 CST Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 2:27:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #26 BCC: Message-ID: <9101110227.ab29250@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jan 91 02:27:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Freqency Loss [Ken Dykes] Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [F. Davidson] International Packet Network Info Wanted [Dean Riddlebarger] Re: New Breed of COCOT [John Cowan] Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges [Randy Borow] Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone [Steve L. Rhoades] Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [D. Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:57:36 GMT In article <15903@accuvax.nwu.edu> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring. >The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair. >Yes, I said aluminum! Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and I wouldn't worry so much about Aluminum, but UNtwisted? eeeeeek! > There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and >the telephone jack I'm trying to use. It's also wired serially >through a jack about ten feet from the drop box. That earlier jack >has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two. The far Does your wiring-run pass any furnace/air-cond/water heater/etc which may have a relay/starter going about every 45 minutes? perhaps when it "starts" you get some sort of induction pickup on your wires. Also, do your mid->high frequency response problems occur at harmonics of 60hz (ie: your phone wires pass hydro wires, the 60hz induction provides a possible dampening effect?) [caveat: I really dont know what I'm talking about.] > While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when >both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular Cross-talk will disappear with twisted pair (or at least "very small" levels will :-) > 2. I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very > old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular, > does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency > response loss? I think UNtwisted is unwise at best of times, heck, bite the bullet install lots of twisted pairs and run Ethernet all over your house :-) > 3. I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted > pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of You got it backward in my belief. > 4. We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the > house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk > net, and up to three phone lines. Does anyone see any problem Yes, yes, capacity planning! wire is cheap, the "running it" is a pain, do it once, but run a lot of pairs. Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes postmaster@watbun.waterloo.edu B8 P6/6 s+ f+ m t w e r p ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 13:55:37 GMT In article <15923@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier >providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local >Exchange Carrier? When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to >a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about >the call not being able to be completed. (I tried this by dialing >10288-0-914-762-xxxx). I ask because if there is in fact some legal >restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which >happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates? >(Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..) Unless there are local (state) restrictions there really are none. However... Listen to the intercept recording you get when you try that until the end where it should give a number, like "9075". If you get some number starting with your area code (or for that matter, any area code) then you are being blocked by the toll switch. Local exchange switches may not have any identification on the recording or may send you to a "fast busy" signal. I suspect you will find that the local switch is intercepting the call. Normally toll switches don't block anything that can be completed, including toll calls right back to your own local exchange! That particular feature may in fact be blocked, however. (People with fat fingers actually dial it that way and then complain about it.) I know of a number of cases where local calls between different switches can be completed by dialing long distance, and yet in the same area there are others that are blocked by the local line switches. The Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System blocks toll calls to ALL other local switches. Most of the other line switchers in the area do not. The calls cost something like 11 cents for the first minute at evening rates. And if you do get a "9075", as I mentioned above, at the end of the intercept ... its Fairbanks. Floyd L. Davidson 98 Salcha, AK 99714 bpaycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Dean Riddlebarger Subject: International Packet Network Info Wanted Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 14:57:17 GMT It's been a while since I've had to check into this... Is anyone out there familiar with international [public] packet network links between Germany and the U.S.? I have some seriously vague third-party information that indicates such abeast exists, and I'd like to dig up as much additional information as possible. I have a coworker based in Germany, and he is checking with the authorities on that end, but he says that since getting a simple phone line is as complex a process as building a Trident missile, he expects a fair delay in getting more detailed information on this particular subject. What we're looking for is a setup in which he can hop onto such a network in Germany [all we know right now is that it is apparently called datex-p], pop through a gateway to a similar network in the U.S. [tymnet], and hop off here in town to access our server. We don't have the cost justification for a dedicated international private line. We are already routing non-sensitive email to his Compuserve account [local access to that in Germany is, oddly, quite easy]. But we would still like to let him come directly into the home machines from time to time. Straight IDDD with a modem is possible, but the connections are not great [forget 9600, if our initial tests are any indication]. I also suspect that a packet service gateway might be cheaper for moderate amounts of usage. Email if you've seen anything like this, and I'll summarize in a week or two for the rest of the group. Thanks! Dean Riddlebarger Truevision, Inc. [317] 841-0332 dean@truevision.com uunet!epicb!dean ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 16:41:40 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: Re: New Breed of COCOT In <15896@accuvax.nwu.edu> our esteemed Moderator wrote: >There are some COCOTS here which require a careful >examination to determine that they are not 'genuine Bell'. Here in New York City, there exist COCOTs that are >identical< to New York Telephone payphones, except that they don't say "New York Telephone" on the rate card or elsewhere on the phone. I suspect they are reconditioned models that NYT sold as scrap. What's worse, not every NYT payphone (especially those inside in odd locations, some of which actually still have rotary dials!) is marked "New York Telephone", although most are. So there is truly no way to be safe except to search every payphone and refuse to use any that aren't marked NYT. That excludes some usable ones, but is the only method guaranteed to reject all zero-armed bandits. ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 10 14:44:29 CST 1991 Subject: Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges Correct me if I'm wrong, but it SOUNDS like you are the victim of 3rd # fraud, Ron. While I do not have your bill in front of me (if you'd give me its account #, I can pull it up here at work and check it out) to check the call codes, it at least sounds like some one placed a call from one locale to another and billed it randomly to your acct. Granted, this is illegal and agrravating; however, as an employee of AT&T, I ask you to be calm and simply call the Account Inquiry Center at the phone number listed on your bill. That # should be (800) 222-0300 if it's your home phone you're talking about. Because I have worked on both 3rd # and calling card fraud in the past, I have been witness to hundreds of very upset AT&T customers. The rep. to whom you talk should be able to arrange the easy credit, and possibly recharge the call to the originating party (providing it's a business or residence #). As long as your LEC, however, does the billing, they are the ones technically responsible for making sure an adjustment appears on your account. And believe me, most LEC's fail miserably to post the proper credits: witness the instant credits issued by AT&T's LD operators. More than half the time, the LEC fails to recognize the adjustment codes and process them -- even though AT&T reps recognize the adj. codes on the bills when they are in the system. Judge Greene, you should be shot. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Admonition: Now, now, now! I think that is a very imprudent thing to say. I don't like him, and after the (still ongoing) telephone case I find it hard to trust his judgment in most matters presented to him for litigation. I am not at all convinced he entered into the telephone case without some personal bias. But I do not recommend violence as a way to solve disputes with few exceptions. I admit to sometimes wishing that impeachment was not such a long, cumbersome process. My commitment to 'free speech' -- given my own blind spots -- is strong enough that it outweighs my general aversion to violence, so I left your message intact. I do wish however you had not said that. We still live in a nation governed by laws, not by guns. Yes, I know, the government has plenty of guns, and some people obey the LAW because of the implied threat from the omnipresence of the government GUNS, but that is a different issue. Let's work toward legislative changes to undo the damage as best we can. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:33:36 GMT After many months of promises, Pac*Bell is finally starting to convert it's dial-pulse only customers to Touch-Tone. It all started back when Pac*Bell promised the Calif. Public Utilities Commission that it would provide free touch-tone and an expanded local calling area (from eight to twelve miles) in exchange for being granted their (you guessed it...) rate increase. I have a line that used soley for incoming calls, no touch-tone, no custom-calling; Sort of the epitome of POTS. Today it had touch-tone and a call to the business office confirmed that they were indeed starting to convert custmers to TT. She further stated that the local calling area would be expanded sometime in February. It really interesting how the rate increases can be put into effect so much faster than Pac*Bell's other promises. I have yet to find a COCOT that complies with their mandate of free 950, 800, and have the phone's responsible party clearly posted. Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 19:05:45 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15888@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border. One of the > more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from > special international toll agreements. > Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually > contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were > dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number. > Costs were minimal. They were handled via a cable that ran from El > Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main. > Then came the MFJ. "Special deals" like this went away and the 905 > NPA applied. Rates went higher. > Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system. > 011+Country Code+ etc. > > Is this progress? > > [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask? Well, Judge Green must > think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the > Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small > towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with > friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it. PAT] In several instances local telcos have been allowed to keep inter-LATA calling capabilities. For example, you can call between northern New Jersey and New York City by meens of NJ Bell or NY Tel, dpending on which side of the Hudson River your phone is. I don't know if the reason that this international capability was discontinued was due to the MFJ, or because the local telco decided not to ask for it to be continued. By the way, this cross international border local service is common around the world. for example, from Geneva (that's in Switzerland for you US geography buffs, you can reach the towns just over the border in France by using a code that looks like a Swiss city code (area code) rather tha dialing the French country code. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service Date: 11 Jan 91 00:20:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15923@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: [ an article about using inter-LATA carriers for intra-LATA calls ] > [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose. > Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed > via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they > legally get away with it. PAT] In NJ, all of the inter-LATA carriers except AT&T provide intra-LATA service. We can use 10xxx plus the home area code and local number, unless xxx happens to be 288 (AT&T). I'm not sure why AT&T choses not to do this, or is prevented from doing it. The MCI rates for calls within NJ are often less than those of NJ Bell, for calls just beyond one's local calling area. They are almost always less than the sent-paid rate from public coin phones. Their 'around town' service allows credit-card calls from phones in the local area without the card surcharge, which definitely beats the price of the NJ Bell IQ-Card! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #26 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07288; 12 Jan 91 5:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05715; 12 Jan 91 3:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07643; 12 Jan 91 2:26 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 1:30:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #27 BCC: Message-ID: <9101120130.ab12574@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:29:33 CST Volume 11 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [TELECOM Moderator] Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell [Jack Winslade] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones) [Julian Macassey] Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN [Joe Stong] Looking for DID Solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or Equiv [Allen Jensen] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Carl Wright] Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Nigel Allen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 0:22:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass mailing. I've received numerous complaints, and although I am really helpless to stop this sort of action I do extend my apologies to those of you who have complained. I knew nothing about it before I began getting copies from several people. I can only suggest that if you do not wish to receive the mailings, you write to the address where they originated and ask to have them stopped. From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing list channels. Thankfully it does not happen all that often. If you were one of the many who wrote me to express your disapproval of the unsolicited mail, please accept this note in place of a personal response. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:18:13 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell Reply-to: jsw@iugate.unomaha.edu Hmmmmmmm ... something just hit me -- something that is so obvious that we cannot see it for the trees. If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000 customers, and we figure the number of BBS systems that have been around for more than one month and will be here one month into the future is about 50 (comma) that means that the BBS lines make up about 50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent. I think we can then assume that the ratio of BBS systems to dialable numbers is more or less the same, +/- one order of magnitude, throughout the USA. Why is it, then, that some phone companies, including the one in Texas (S. Bell or SW Bell, I can never keep them straight) and GTE in Indiana (or was it Ohio, I can never keep them straight ;-) are so concerned with such a small fraction of their customers?? Heck, if .01% of the telephone subscribers kept their phones off hook all day long, it shouldn't generate any blip at all in any accounting records and it certainly is so insignificant that it would be buried in the margin of error of any traffic measuring study. Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a miniscule group of their subscribers ?? Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones) Date: 11 Jan 91 15:16:00 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Tired Insomniacs Assn Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 17, Message 4 of 9 >In article <15804@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kari Hardarson unc.edu> writes: >>I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a >>phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether >>the phone will work at all for that matter. >3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R". I > don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to > the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly > what it does. The "R" is the "Recall" button and is usually a ground button used to signal a PBX or CO. It is used only for feature control and is not needed for POTS service. >4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other > phone system in the world. Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not > work properly. It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones. The Swedish minimum line current is 12 mA, The U.S. (Bell) spec is 20 mA. But your standard 2500 (AT&T Desk Phone) set will work pretty well down to 14 mA. Cheap and nasty imported phones may not work on Swedish line current, they don't do too well on U.S. line current either. >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. See 3 above re the R button. But the kicker here is, phones sold in the U.S. neither connect nor use the second pair (Black/Yellow). So this is difficult or impossible to do. U.S. Phones using both pairs are either two line phones or have A1 lead control. Some old phones also used the yellow wire as a ground wire for grounded ringing. But none of those U.S. scenarios will fit the CCITT R button. More correctly, a U.S. phone will work fine, but not have the recall button unless you wire it in yourself. I do not see how that can affect the call hanging up. Hanging up the phone disconnects Tip and Ring and stops current flow. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 03:30:16 PST From: Joe Stong Subject: Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN As usual, I want to do some reasonably inexpensive computer to computer data connection between two sites that are diagonally across a street from each other (building to building is about 500 feet). If any of you gadget freaks out there can refer me to some sort of short to moderate range RF LAN, send me mail. Or any interesting solution involving those short range TV transmit/receive systems for your VCR, and some inexpensive serial or ethernet to TV channel modulator/demodulators. I've only seen one, reasonably low speed solution, an RF modem device called a "LAWN" ($600 gets you 19,200Baud and 500feet, maybe). I'd love to climb into the underground utility tunnels and string some coax, and do ethernet between the buildings, but I haven't a clue as to who to ask, and what bureaucracy I'd have to go through to do it. It is a city street. How do companies like the cable TV folks get the rights to cut slots in the pavement and insert coax, or string wires on the poles, or run wire through whoever's underground tunnels? Who owns the tunnels and or the poles? The last time I dealt with a leased line, it was between a couple of buildings that were about two blocks from each other. The leased line was something like 6.5 miles long, because the phone company required that the line go across town to the phone company and back to the other building. This was in order that they could leave a butt set parked across the line in the phoneco office so that it would short out the feeble pulse carrier stuff that the short haul modems were putting out. It also appears that leased T1 is ordinary pairs, but you get shielded twisted pair in to your building. You mean that MOST pairs in the cable on the street will carry 1.544 MBaud? ISDN at 128Kbaud must be trivial on those pairs, then. Given that MOST of the expense of phone service is probably generated by the equipment and personnel required to do itemized billing of calls, and not for the service itself, is there any technical reason that we couldn't have >128Kbps Internet jacks installed on our home and office walls for $30 a month, flat rate, by the phone company? (Instead, we may, after much struggling, get ISDN, which would be charged packet by packet for point-to-point connections, from which they can milk more money). (The rationale for the above rate and cost is that an existing voice line costs maybe $15 a month for 56Kbaud plus A/D and D/A conversion and the equipment to log call source and destination. I'd expect the cost to be similar for a router that ran at similar baud rates.) My short term interest is to find a cheap solution for me. However, I'll be delighted if I generate some discussion about the general philosophy and economics of data connections through the phone companies. Send me mail and post, I can't keep up with the volume of comp.dcom.telecom. Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: allen@audiofax.com From: Allen Jensen Subject: Looking for DID solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or equiv Date: 11 Jan 91 16:08:22 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta Since Nicollet went out of business, I am trying to find an alternative to the Digitrap 1015 card. My basic need is to take incomming DID lines from the CO and map them in to some set of available phone lines. Once the DID connection through to the regular phone is made and the phone is taken off-hook, the switch (the 1015 or equivilent) sends down the DTMF of the DID number dialed. +-----------+ +-----------+ POTS +--------------+ | | DID Trunks | Digitrap |-------| XYZ | | CO |==================| 1015 |-------| Voicemail | | | |Replacement|-------| System | +-----------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ (Not completely sure of my terminology - my use of POTS refers to your standard, just like your home phone, telephone line.) In addition, I would also be interested in any loop-start/DID converters anyone knows about. In addition, I need to find a low cost switch that will take some set of incomming 800 lines and map them to a smaller set of lines. After the connection is established, the switch sends DTMF of the last seven digits of the 800 number down to the voicemail system. By low cost, I mean anything under $30,000 than can handle several hundred incomming 800 lines and 30-40 outgoing lines. +-----------+ +-----------+ POTS +--------------+ | | 800 Lines | |-------| XYZ | | CO |==================| Switch |-------| Voicemail | | | | |-------| System | +-----------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ Any information at all will be helpful. I need this really fast. If anyone out there has a used Digitrap 1015 from Nicollet they want to sell, please let me know. Phone: (404) 933-7600 FAX: (404) 618-4582 (fax mailbox) When leaving a fax, please leave a voice annotation. P. Allen Jensen AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 200 allen@audiofax.com 2000 Powers Ferry Rd. emory!audfax!allen Marietta, GA. 30067 Up to 24 FAX lines in a 80386 based system runing System V UNIX ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:09:41 GMT In article <15879@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are >using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?). >When you are outside of your local area and registered in another, >your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in, >the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it. This >is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not >as neat as the call just going through by itself. Based on my >experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details: > - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive >a call in a foreign system in order to activate it. For many users, the "Registration" process for the phone occurs when the phone is turned on. By "Registration" I don't intend to say that your home switch knows your location when you turn the phone on in another carrier's service area. That probably only happens when your home switch is requested to verify your credit worthiness by the switch you are visiting via the roamer validation service company. In Los Angeles, with Cellular One, you are using one of Ericsson's most sophisticated installations. They have four AXE-10 switches networked together so that whenever you turn on your phone, your home switch (the one you were activated in by Cellular One) knows where you are at. They need the information to seamlessly route calls coming in to you. The call traffic in Los Angeles has become so intense in some neghborhoods that PacTel has raised the rates for using your phone in that area. If you travel through, part of the call is at normal (high) rates and the part in this neighborhood is charged at still hgher rates. I forget the neighborhood. Is it Rodeo Drive? > - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment. All they >need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network. >When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another >system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are. This validation actually occurs after the first call is completed. This is primarily a system to limit roamer fraud. This is provided by GTETS and APPEX/EDS for almost all cellular carriers. They have even set up a gateway between them to pass information so that they serve each others customer base. The information passed between carrier switches is being increased to permit the visited switch to know your characteristics as a user and to treat you like your home system does. It is part of the goal of providing seamless service. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:34:47 EST Organization: 52 Manchester In article <15775@> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to >Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak >being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote >says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where >is that? The additional charges are known in some circles as "other-line" charges. At a guess, Atlin is served by Northwestel Inc., which serves the Yukon, the western half of the Northwest Territories, and parts of northern British Columbia. Northwestel was formerly part of Canadian National Telecommunications, but was sold a few years back to BCE Inc. (formerly Bell Canada Enterprises), the parent company of Bell Canada. "Other-line" charges may also apply for calls to points served by Quebec- Telephone (51% owned by GTE Corp.) and Telebec Ltee (another BCE subsidiary). Northwestel, Quebec-Telephone and Telebec all serve some fairly remote points, and don't have the same economies of scale as more urban carriers. Presumably this at least partly justifies their higher rates and "other-line" charges. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #27 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08283; 12 Jan 91 6:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30115; 12 Jan 91 4:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05715; 12 Jan 91 3:33 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 3:03:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #28 BCC: Message-ID: <9101120303.ab29548@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 03:03:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Secure Lines [Joe Francis] Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call [Hui Lin Lim] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette] Re: Source of Dial-less Phones [Dave Johnston] They (Can) Know Where You Are (was: Roaming) [Laird P. Broadfield] RS484 Data Link Protocol [Dave Price] AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Johnny Zweig] Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas [Carl Moore] I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Randy Borow] 7400 Series "Voice Terminals" [Ken Thompson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Francis Subject: Re: Secure Lines Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1991 05:01:19 GMT Straying from comp.dcom.telecom somewhat, but it's short: In article <15915@accuvax.nwu.edu> tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) writes: > Third, if he did have one [a security clearance], he would have >used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who >to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos >that gave him the run-around. Neither of these is generally true. Although I imagine there are plenty of people holding clearances who do know these things, the majority of people holding clearances (including those I have worked with) have never heard of a STU-III and would have little idea who to call. Most people who hold clearances have them because of the information they deal with in their work, not because of their knowledge of the intelligence community and it's practices. ------------------------------ From: Hui Lin Lim Subject: Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call Date: 10 Jan 91 23:58:17 GMT Organization: HP Singapore In comp.dcom.telecom, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that > Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per > call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there. I > will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest > readers have some more info on this themselves. I'd just like to clarify that Singapore has not yet gone to time based charging yet. This is scheduled to begin next year. Apparently the new rates will allow the equivalent of 17 minutes of "free" calls (compared to the present rates). The stated reason for changing the charging scheme is supposed to be the large number of fax/data calls now becoming more frequent. I doubt that it will significantly change BBS usage as the new rates are still quite low but it will probably result in large increases in revenue for the Telecom authority. One expected benefit of this is that junk faxes should be reduced (since these are essentially free to the caller right now). HuiLin ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 11 Jan 91 04:41:09 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <15867@accuvax.nwu.edu> ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) writes: >charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing >this hole in the rate structure >In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call >rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart >from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) >charge, No. Unfortunately, a 976 number with that type of rate structure is not currently possible. I wish it were. It would make a whole range of 976 data numbers possible. But under the current rate structure, using 900 or 976 results in charges much higher than the existing services that provide their services over the packet networks. The charge to the owner of a (900) number is in the range of thirty to forty cents a minute. So even if the owner provided the service at cost (as UUNET does), the charge to the consumer is still about $24 an hour and this is much too high. The charge for telco 900 and 976 numbers is usually less, but again the telco's cut means that the rate to the consumer can not be in the afforable range and compete with the likes of Compu$erve. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: or Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429 ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Date: 11 Jan 91 13:59:09 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In message <15886@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hm@fwi.uva.nl (HM) writes: HM> Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular HM> non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. The 06-11 number is temporary. In the future it will be 112 - the emergency number will be the same in all western Europe. PTT Telecom doesn't issue any new subscriber numbers starting with 1, and existing numbers starting with 1 will be phased out. (I don't know why all numbers starting with 1, rather than 112). When the new number is available, there will be a transition period where both numbers will be valid. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 10:57:13 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <15907@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Steve Forrette writes: >> but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first >> minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be >> higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling >> card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit >If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin >rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid >calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three >minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls >lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional >deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that >larger amounts could be collected for short calls. I just tried it again, and it is definately for one minute. >In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for >coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for >the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement. >(Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are >paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent. >Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning. The operator tried to give me the line that the charge helped maintain the phone. I challenged her with the fact that this was a semi-public phone and that my living group paid Pacific Bell $30 a month to have it there. Her answers quickly dried up. Also, if the phone was so costly to maintain, why don't calling card calls have such a high surcharge as well? Another possible answer that has been offerred is that it is very costly to send people out to collect the coins. But, Pacific Bell is already sending people out each month to collect all of the $.20 deposits for local calls, so AT&T has no reason to charge for this. I imagine that Pacific Bell charges AT&T something for the coin collection services, but I don't think it is as outlandish as $1.50 per call or anything like that. >Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe >first-hand how they handle coin phones there. Probably better than in the US! :-( ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 91 08:21 +0000 From: Dave_JOHNSTON%01%SRJC@odie.santarosa.edu Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones In are recent issue Paul W. Schleck [pschleck@unomaha.edu] asked for sources for Dial-less red "hotline" phones. In my past life in the interconnect business I had a couple customers ask for those. The best source I found was a telephone refurbisher. They had the old wall and desk rotary phones available without the dial. The folks I used were ATRS in Sandpoint, Idaho, but a recent review of Telecom Gear didn't have their ad and I can't seem to locate their address or phone number. I would suggest you try a couple of the following: Eltas, Inc. +1 412 343 2500 Lippincott Industries +1 509 922 1783 R&R Refurbishing +1 800 323 8989 Telephone Outlet +1 800 782 9701 Shasta Refurbishers +1 916 244 4708 I haven't used any of them, but I would suspect that any of them could come up with what you need. Dave Johnston +1 707 527 4853 Santa Rosa Junior College Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom 1501 Mendocino Ave. johnston@odie.SantaRosa.EDU Santa Rosa, CA 95401 ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: They (Can) Know Where You Are (was New Roaming System...) Date: 11 Jan 91 05:50:54 GMT In <15879@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to >mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will: >"privacy." Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my >cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" >carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you >place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off >(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it >working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No >Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Actually, I had a thought a while back, when I was chatting with an out- of-town friend who works for (a B carrier.) We were chatting about all of the smarts that's going on behind the scenes vis-a-vis signal strength, cell handoff, software based "hysteriesis" to avoid back-and-forth of calls at nearly equal strength, and so forth, when I realized that it should be fairly trivial to derive location information from all this. Not only that, you don't have to even go off-hook, the switch can bang your phone with an interrogate packet without you ever noticing. Seemed to us that this made perfect sense, and his intuition said that a 100-yard radius of uncertainty was a reasonable guess, assuming some foreknowlege of signal propagation characteristics in the particular area. "Ha ha, forget what _city_ you're in, we know what _room_ you're in!!" Does this theory fall apart anywhere? (P.S. Can somebody mail me with the mfr. and model of the handheld that has a _vibrate_ ringer? None of the local outlets seem to have heard about it.) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Price Subject: RS484 Data Link Protocol Date: 11 Jan 91 12:58:49 GMT Reply-To: Dave Price Organization: UCW,Aberystwyth,WALES,UK A research group here has come up against a possible (likely?) requirement to implement RS484 data Link protocol. Has anyone got experience of this protocol, what it entails and how long (man days etc) it might take to implement. I have checked several text books in my possession and I cant yet find any references to it. In our circumstance it will need to be implemented over a point to point link. Thanks folks, Dave Price UUCP : { ENGLAND or WALES }!ukc!aber-cs!dap JANET: dap@uk.ac.aber.cs PHONE: +44 970 622428 From_the_world: dap@cs.aber.ac.uk Post: University College of Wales, Penglais, Aberystwyth, UK, SY23 3BZ. ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 17:51:27 GMT I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now (if memory serves; I ordered it the same day I read about it in comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and Canada. My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T Universal VISA cards aren't distributed? It seems kind of like a you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:15:28 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas In a note dated December 5 (1990), John Slater writes regarding the UK: >The dialling code (STD code) was the same for the >whole country except in the area local to the number (where no >dialling code was required) and immediately adjacent areas (where a >short one or two-digit code was used). These short codes served two >purposes: they saved time and finger-ache when dialling, and they >bypassed the trunk network. >Today most local codes have been abandoned, and STD codes work to >anywhere from anywhere, including within the local dialling area. Much >simpler. If I read correctly several years ago, a similar concept was proposed (and rejected) for calls within New York City when it became necessary to split 212 to form 718. That was a "borough code". I take it one reason to reject it is the confusion it would cause to people from out of town? [Moderator's Note: But Carl, we still use many abbreviated codes without worrying about confusion for out of town people. We use 411 for directory here. Other places use 113? or 555-1212. 611 is a quick way to reach repair, but many places have to dial a seven or ten digit number to reach repair. 911 causes confusion with people in one town who hear about it being available elsewhere and think that they have it also, when they don't and are still dialing 7-D for police. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 11 12:54:29 CST 1991 Subject: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot Pat, lighten up a bit. I am one not to ever advocate violence unless it's a last resort (self-defense, etc.). My comment should not have been construed the way it was. I merely continue to express my indignation toward that black-robed monarch. By the way, I agree with you on the suggestion that the Not-so-Honorable Judge may indeed have been prejudiced in some way. Just how the h*** did he get to be so much of a legislator anyway? I thought Congress and the state legislatures were those empowered to MAKE laws, and judges INTERPRETED them. Obviously, I'm wrong. Oh well, it's not like it hasn't been happening for years anyway. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: 7400 Series "Voice Terminals" Date: 11 Jan 91 20:55:23 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS A technical question for the net: My current phoneset(2500) will soon be replaced by a digital unit (7401). There is curiousity about the 7400 series receivers. Is the speaker low impedance just as in the 2500? The transmiter cannot be carbon type. It is too small. Is it a simple mike or an electret (sp?) that requires a small, current limited bias voltage to operate properly? Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316) 636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #28 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16190; 12 Jan 91 15:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22731; 12 Jan 91 13:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05612; 12 Jan 91 12:49 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #29 BCC: Message-ID: <9101121206.ab12157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Business Rates vs COCOTS [J. Philip Miller] Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Charles McGuinness] Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Mike Miller] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Jim Redelfs] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin] Re: 900 Number Addresses [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Craig Harris] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Amanda Walker] AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling [Jim Celoni] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Business Rates vs COCOT Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 7:53:46 CST The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} reported in this morning's issue that they had decided that public FAX machines were no longer entitled to be connected with a regular business line (which is flat rated in St. Louis) but rather would have to pay time and distance sensitive rates since they were reselling telephone service [I presume that the rates which will now be required would be the same as a COCOT operator would have to play]. This raises all sorts of other interesting ideas in our consideration of the rules for who should be paying business rates. Many university computer centers offer outdial modem services. If you are being charged for this (e.g. connect time to the computer controlling it) does it mean that this line should be a COCOT line rather than a business rate? Are COCOT lines which are not blocked for incoming calls charged for the incoming calls? If so that raises another issue for our BBS operator who charges for use of the board. Does anyone know what type of rates folks like Tymnet pay for their phone lines? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:04:51 EST In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: > I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer rotary dial phones! A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years old) asked if I could install a phone for her in the kitchen. Of course, I went out and bought one of those nice new phones with extra large buttons to make things easy for her (certainly easier than dialing her pre-500 series phone!). But after I installed it she started complaining: "Honey, that new phone, it's no good! It keeps dialing the wrong number!". She seemed to be getting an 8 whenever she pushed 5. Of course, whenever I tested the phone, it worked flawlessly. It could only be one thing -- pilot error. I tried to suggest, as gently as possible, that she must have pressed the wrong keys. But, that didn't fly. So, what could I do? I went to my local AT&T phone center and asked for a wall mount rotary dial phone. After spending a few minutes convincing them that I really knew what I wanted, they led me to a closet full of these things, and let me pick my choice. Grandma has been happily rotary dialing ever since. Charles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 22:01 GMT From: Mike Miller <0004330819@mcimail.com> Subject: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? I want to monitor the activity of my switchboard operators. I plan to notify them that I plan to randomly monitor the operator consoles to assures quality assurance along with prompt and courteous service. What I need to know is ... is this legal? or is it considered eavesdropping? There is a jack at each operator console for monitoring purposes, but I plan to monitor them from the switch room. Any suggestions? I want to add that I will NOT be doing this if it is considered illegal. But I would like a true answer, not an opinion. [Moderator's Note: Apparently it is legal. All telcos monitor their oeprators on duty. I do not believe it is illegal to monitor the performance of employees whose duties include the use of the telephone to serve customers by listening unannounced on the phone as they speak. It may be essential however that you place a conspicuous notice in the telephone room stating that "conversations between switchboard operators and our customers may be subject to unannounced monitoring for the purpose of training our operators and improving our service." I think it would also be important that your wiring be installed so that you were *only* able to monitor the operator's talk path -- that is, the common circuit between the operator's headset and the line terminations on each switchboard position. *Do not* monitor the building house pairs or God forbid, telco's pairs coming into the premises, etc. Once the operator opened a key on her position, you could hear her and the caller she was working with. When she closed the key and dropped out of the circuit, the connection would be private between the calling and called parties once again, meaning you should pick it up from the auxiliary jack on each position. Quite obviously if the operator makes a personal phone call from her position you will overhear it, but I assume that is what you want to do while protecting the privacy of your users. But I'd not do it without advising the operators that you had the ability to do so and were so inclined. Of course, that might end your problems right there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:57:45 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of > high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in > enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised > concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a > higher threat of disruption. US WEST Communications (NE) is offering special, "self-healing" (whatever THAT means) fiber service to major business. I have forgotten the two options, but one includes installing TWO cables to the business, fed from opposite directions. One is (presumably) idle (spare?) while the other one operates. In the event of an outage, the system automatically (again, presumably) switches to the back-up cable. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:58:39 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's > out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted > people, it's public. > Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read > about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}. Although your was an EXCELLENT discussion of the "how to" and "why use a" secure (a) line, but it sure makes ordinary loops sound virtually non-private! Virtually everything I have heard in the course of my years has not been memorable, yet ordinary subscribers are increasing concerned about the security of their ordinary transmissions! I had a new-home installation recently where the subscriber insisted that the Network Interface be placed INSIDE the home, and that the dropwire enter the foundation BELOW grade! The customer's primary concern was the integrity of his home security system. After two hours and a dozen calls, we (US WEST Communications/NE) acquiesed and accomodated the customer. I explained that all a reasonably skilled burglar would have to do was to simply walk out to the wirepost in front and cut the line. He was not swayed. Another customer had their security system installer build a wooden box around the protector housing and (drop) riser tube, complete with magnetic switch! Explaining to the customer that two minutes (or less) with a tile spade would circumvent THAT safeguard (dig up and cut the shallow drop). In my (not yet) vast experience, I have encountered only ONE "tap" and it was merely a (convicted) case of "Theft of Services"!! Has there been much (any) traffic here regarding unauthorized entry into residential SNIs (Standard (telephone) Network Interfaces - complete with working, RJllC jack) on the backs of homes? I recall seeing a short bit about it on CNN Headline News a couple of years ago. Our SNI vendor (Seicor) finally replaced the "can wrench" bolt with the Allen/Torx-like-headed bolt. GREAT! Just another tool to carry to the back of each house! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 12 Jan 91 08:37:01 GMT Organization: Northwestern University In article <15966@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). >> Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may >> not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. >I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black): > - Off-hook indication for key sets. [List of other uses deleted] >Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use? I would presume the off-hook indication, since what Televerket complains about is that non-"T"-certified (remember, Televerket is like FCC and pre-1984 AT&T combined) phones may not hang up correctly. In Sweden, a phone call is not necessarily disconnected unless *both* parties hang up, thus you can: 1. Ask your party to wait, hang up, and grab another phone somewhere else (there is a timeout in most areas). 2. Trace a harassing call even if the harasser hangs up. Also, in Sweden the indoor wiring is serial, not parallel, meaning that if you lift the handset on one phone, you disconnect all phones with lower priority, i.e. further away from the incoming line. This looks to me like it almost has to be some form of on/off relay here? (Maybe someone at ericsson.se knows...) H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ Date: 12-JAN-1991 04:15:15.78 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: 900 Number Addresses > [Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno > for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty > criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail > service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail, > probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him. PAT] Indeed! :) I too called DA and they found no listing for either firm. Ultimately, if these people keep calling, I expect what I will do is present NY Tel with a copy of the certified receipt, and show that I have made more than reasonable efforts to notify them (the 900/540 people) that they are annoying me. Then (I hope!), NY Tel will be more helpful in finding out the local guy with the recorded solicitation machine, who is the actual source of my problem. However, it has been three weeks now, and I haven't received a call on ANY of my lines, so maybe Mr. Eagleton actually picked up his mail ... and is finding a new mailbox so he can start calling again! :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Craig Harris Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Date: 12 Jan 91 09:59:30 GMT Reply-To: Craig Harris Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 15, Message 4 of 9 >This is something that has always bothered me. Let's say that I'm >roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't >automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then >enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are >calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, >whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point >the secondary dialtone is provided. The reason for the answer supervision on roamer access numbers is that some of the time AT&T will not pass audio from the calling party to the terminating party until there is answer supervision. If the Cellular switch did not return supervision, the calling party would not be able to DTMF overdial your mobile number to the roamer access port. This was not always the case. A few years ago, some of the long distant companies that were buying time from AT&T would not send supervision, but would actually complete the call and they could not bill for those calls. So, this was their fix to always make sure that supervision was returned before connecting the audio path from the calling party to the terminating party until answer supervision was returned. Craig Harris, Motorola Inc 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237 ...!uunet!motcid!charris Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 09:40:02 GMT The last time I did a road trip back to DC from Ohio, I was amused to find that I could hit one of DC/Balt Cell One's cells from I-70 as it crossed a ridge near Hancock, MD. Thinking quickly, I pulled over onto the shoulder and called in to my answering machine. I couldn't hit a DC cell again for almost another 45 minutes worth of driving time ... you can also see DC cells from Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park, as long as you are on the east side of the ridge :) Amanda Walker anda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ From: Jim Celoni Subject: AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling Organization: Columbia University Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 17:12:28 GMT In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >My AT&T Universal card ... [doesn't] >work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T.... >My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for >distributing calling card numbers... It's a feature :). My AT&T Universal calling card number works fine with the local operating companies (e.g. Pac*Bell) for intra-LATA calls, but only with AT&T for inter-LATA. So my number is in the shared database, but the IXCs have more restricted access to it?? I do think it's a feature because it alerts one who doesn't notice the lack of the sparkling "AT&T" or the "Thank you for using AT&T" voices that another carrier is trying to handle the call. I use Metromedia <> ITT's Preferred Calling Card (NO surcharge, 950 access, competitive per-minute rates; info 800/ 275-0100) for most domestic calls, even intra-LATA, but if I know a call will be long enough for the difference in per-minute rates to exceed the surcharge (e.g. 0.72+(ATT less 10%) < Metro, or 0.40+PacBell < Metro -- several minutes to > 1/2 hr depending on time of day and called number), then I'll use the Universal Card. A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off. I punch my number in. Another competitive option for travel calling (not touted as often as the MCI Card and Sprint FONcard) is MCI's VisaPhone/MasterPhone (0.70 surcharge+0.10-0.18/min; info 800/ 866-0099/333-3252). Standard disclaimer applies; I'm just a happy user. +j ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #29 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22338; 12 Jan 91 22:31 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25648; 12 Jan 91 21:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10198; 12 Jan 91 19:59 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #30 BCC: Message-ID: <9101121926.ab28572@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Brian Crawford] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Redelfs] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jim Redelfs] Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Frederick Roeber] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson] Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [randall@thor.sandiego.ncr.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 15:30:20 GMT The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual >community is what you find important, it should be okay, and >encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling >fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, >they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual >chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like 900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced over the last decade. Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote two people talking out each other's fantasies. Nor does it denote rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person interactions. Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat. More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of service or information from the other, and often paying for it. If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word "community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think than I knew before, Pat. :-) Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not. I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities. I'd just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat. This is a loss that should be avoided. John Higdon's elegant solution has yet to be fully addressed here, by the way. Higdon suggests that residential rates be the rates that are charged to *residences*. What a concept. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation [Moderator's Note: I'll have a colloquy of my own in response to all this in the next issue of the Digest or the one following. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:26:31 GMT In article <15944@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator, in responding to Mike Godwin writes: > fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, > they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual > chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. I suspect that the chat lines qualify as "virtual communities", but not the dial-a-porn. How can you call it a community if none of the "members" know each other? I think this is a specious argument, but you are going a bit overboard here. In article <15946@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator responds to peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates... > I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. > You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines > and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other > strangers. Good, we've established a base at which a BBS is not a business. Now, let's go on from there ... a friend of mine is running an eight-line system, but he doesn't advertise. Five of the lines have modems that are compatible with Teletext services, so U.S. Videotel customers (and old Sourceline customers) can call. Most of the users are people he knows from U.S.Videotel, or from other BBSes, but he doesn't validate. This system is not to my knowledge (or his) advertised anywhere, but it does have chat and games and the lines are in use a considerable portion of the time. Very few (if any) of the users are total strangers to him, though we don't all know each other. This person is by nature fairly solitary, so the BBS is a large part of his social life. Is it a business? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Probably it should not be treated as a business since there is at least some connection between himself and the callers. As you pointed out, 'few if any are total strangers'. He does not really solicit the public, or invite electronic strangers to call and make use of his facilities. I never said some of these situations would not be close calls, and this one is certainly such a case. My feeling would be that in cases where things are *so gray* that no real decision can be made, the benefit of the doubt should go to the subscriber. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:58:49 GMT I wrote: >Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled >out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay >the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby? >Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be >charged business rates? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the >sysop is doing Pat responds: >[Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be >charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer >should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the >phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged >to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory >listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who >specifically solicit the public to call them **. Ah, so your entire argument comes down to this: phone rates should not be proportional to actual use of telco resources, but rather to some arbitrary definition of what a "business" is. Specifically, your definition includes an explicit "solicitation for the public to call [the BBS] telephone." Thus, a BBS-addict who installs a second line for use specifically to make outgoing calls to BBSi should not pay business rates, despite the fact that a) it makes heavy use of telco resources and b) is a *non-casual, committed* use of that phone line. You believe this to be fair? >To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for >higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their >hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy >use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your >telephone. There are other hobbies which make heavy use of the telephone (BBSing and running a point system as described earlier). Some BBSers spend more time on the phone than many BBSs, yet you do not think they should pay business rates because they don't "solicit the public to call" them. What is so magical about this "solicit the public to call" idea that it alone should double someone's phone rates? Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: If there are going to be two sets of rates, one for 'residential' and the other for 'business' users, then there has to be some starting point to decide what falls in which category. I thought the 'do you solicit the public' question was one way of deciding who should go where. It was not intended as the last word or final test. To answer your question about how much use is made of the service, I do not think a personal/business use distinction should be made based on the amount of time a line is engaged. Certainly the one who uses more of the service should pay more *per use*, but I don't think they should have an overall higher monthly rate merely because they use it more. The BBS-addict you described is placing a call on his telephone just like a person calling voice is using the phone. He should pay for what he uses, but his is residential use, because it is a casual call, placed at his discretion, lasting whatever time he wishes to be connected. Short of shutting down the board, the sysop does not make these choices: He responds when the phone rings, provides the information or service demmanded of him by the caller and in fact encourages others to call and utilize his service through his advertising. There is a difference between specifically prompting others to call you and providing them some service -- even chat -- when they call and the person who casually uses his phone at his convenience to place such calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 12 Jan 91 16:51:36 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <15941@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what! (I'll resist > flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people > who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.) When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos. Enjoy them while you can. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA [Moderator's Note: Well, I dunno ... AT&T, Sprint and MCI all have commercial email services at this time, and the government has the Internet, yet you don't see them hassling the BBS guys all that much except for the current controversy over what rates to be charged. All of the big three email providers -- or four if you count Compuserve were more than eager to interconnect with the 'free' Internet once the technical bugs were worked out. They don't seem that eager to squash the others in my opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:00:56 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be > no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch > reports were off-normal. > Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone > for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on > a given day! Amen to that! I can always tell when the kids have gotten home from school. Our "clattering antique" (Western Electric 2B ESS) just percolates! Pretty quite, otherwise. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:56:59 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated line > access charges" between residences and businesses? I may be wrong, but > thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned but > poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses got > hit harder. > Anyone know? A quick call to the Business (as opposed to Residence) Business Office (I forgot this week's acronym!) reveals that the Federal Access Charge for a 1FB (flat-rate Business line) just went down this week from $4.82 to $4.71 - a reduction? I'm impressed! Currently, the RESIDENTIAL charge, per line, is $3.50. God bless Harold Greene. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 12 Jan 91 06:31:42 PST I believe the confusion over the "secure phone" mentioned in the book, The Cuckoo's Egg, arises from Dr. Stoll describing a few phone calls he received: One day, he answered his phone only to hear a recording "This is not a secure phone..." The person on the other end hung up and tried again, with the same result. After a couple tries, he finally got through, and was able to start questioning Dr. Stoll. Dr. Stoll replied, "This is not a secure phone..." A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure phone system and trying to initiate a secure call. When making a secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call -- over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever. When the other end has been reached, one presses the `secure' button. This makes each end call the main computer that controls the secure phone system. Through an encrypted conversation, the main computer sends each phone two numbers: a key with which they can communicate with each other (for that conversation only), and a key to be used for the next call to the main computer. Then the main computer drops out, and the phones can send encrypted traffic to each other. Of course, if you hit `secure' when other end is a regular phone, the main computer realizes it can't set up an encrypted link, and plays the warning message. It also logs the attempt. So Dr. Stoll need not have been anywhere near a secure phone to get such a call. Frederick G.M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@vxcern.cern.ch r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: +41 22 767 31 80 ------------------------------ From: Kari Hardarson Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 12 Jan 91 18:49:53 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill The Icelandic PTT also uses the big four-prong plugs. (Big enough for supplying electricity to a stove !). The 2nd pair is used to forward the connection to another outlet. If an outlet is used, an internal switch cuts the forward link and prevents other phones down the line from being used. The switch is mechanical, i.e. when a phone is plugged into the outlet, the switch opens. I guess they do it to prevent the telephone line from being overloaded by too many telephones. Doesn't make much sense these days, I should think, since the newer telephones don't draw as much current as the older ones did. Kari Hardarson 217 Jackson Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 11:53:45 -0500 From: randall@thor.sandiego.ncr.com Subject: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo Pat: It might interest you to know that the fiber optic break which affected NY particularly Wall Street was a terrorist operation, but is being kept covert for fear of alerting the American public. This information is from a second hand CIA source, so if you quote me I just say it's second hand. Randall [Moderator's Note: Consider it said, then. What you say does not surprise me, but I don't know if I believe it or not. The Central Intelligence Agency has had a long reputation as agent provocateurs; that is, they create their own terrorism sometimes so they can blame whoever the current enemy of the people happens to be. Maybe the CIA cut the cable themselves hoping to stir up more trouble. Mini-book review: Read and enjoy "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". It is a fascinating book and explains lots of CIA dirty tricks. The book was banned here in the USA, but now and then you can find a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #30 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23098; 12 Jan 91 23:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21617; 12 Jan 91 22:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25648; 12 Jan 91 21:04 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 20:23:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Technical error in issue 30 BCC: Message-ID: <9101122023.ab00907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To our mailing list readers who burst their digests into undigested format: An error in issue 30 (released Satruday night) will prevent the process from working correctly. There are only nine messages ... not ten. Remove the erroneous duplicate header in the table of contents. Peter da Silva's article is listed twice there ... but the article was only printed once. By removing the duplicate header in your editor then saving it back out, you should be able to undigest the issue properly. Sorry for the error and confusion. PAT   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28570; 13 Jan 91 2:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32268; 13 Jan 91 1:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20040; 13 Jan 91 0:08 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #31 BCC: Message-ID: <9101122330.ab16314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [J. Eric Townsend] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson] Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Robert Jacobson] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Levenson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Dave Levenson] Recording Phone Calls [David Michels] Baku-Vanaku Beachside Revisited [K. M. Peterson] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Dave Levenson] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Bryan Richardson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:55:53 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > The other employee told me that the > two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the > same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate > calls. > The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone. Does > anyone have any information about this? Traditionally, extensions off of Semi-Pub coins are dial-less sets. Some time ago, I installed a B1M (Measured Business) loop to the pizza kitchen of a convenience store. I installed the wall jack and they hung a 554-type DIAL-LESS set. Obviously, the line is intended for incoming-only calls, but it was a "plain" line - allowing OUTgoing with a dial-equipped phone. As for the "hunting" on the Semi-Pubs: I've never heard of or seen that! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: Long, long ago, in a different place, a nerdy ninth-grade student fixed up a neat deal for his uncle who owned the drugstore on the corner: He took a two-line turn-button phone and installed it in the pharmacy area in the back. One side of the turn button was the pharmacy phone line; the other side of the turn button was an extension from the semi-pub coin phone booth in the front of the store. As we all know, those old two-line turn-button phones had a third pair/set of contacts in them: the turn-button could be pressed down (on release it would spring back up) and this normally was used to sound a buzzer at another extension. But the smart-alecky kid used it to momentarily send one side of the line to ground on the pay phone pair ... this was long before the 'dialtone first' era ... and the resulting dialtone on the pay phone line saved his uncle (but mostly him) the 'nuisance' of having to walk to the front of the store and deposit a nickle in the coin slot to get the same dialtone. He could dial from the two-line phone in back of course ... then one day the telephone inspector came around to see if 'something might be wrong with this instrument'. Panic! The wires were quickly clipped at the pharmacy end and never reconnected. The inspector, a fellow with a big red nose and a gleam in his eye said he hoped he'd not have to visit these premises again; that there'd be hell to pay if he returned. The lad's uncle, not being a regular reader of telecom, had known nothing about the 'mystery third position' on the turn-button ... only that his smart nephew had fixed up a new phone for him in his office. There was hell to pay, alright, and it did not require a return visit by the inspector. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:28:28 GMT In article <16011@accuvax.nwu.edu> jyacc!charles@uunet.uu.net (Charles McGuinness) writes: >In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: >> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? >You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer >rotary dial phones! A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years And the rest of us have little choice. UH has no real organizational level telecommunications policies. Most departments still have the rotary *only*, department level switching units. When I got my office phone (touch tone) I discovered that I couldn't use the office-to- office intercom system easily because it was pulse driven. I now astound the mathematicians by manually dialing with the switchhook if I need to buzz another office. :-) J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 Motorola skates on Intel's head! ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Date: 12 Jan 91 23:47:50 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Chris Johnson's discrimination between "business" decisions and "political" decisions is naive, though commonly held. There are few business decisions which do not have a political component, whether it is a trivial battle between divisions within a corporation or more serious attempts to alter the balance of benefits and/or power within society. For example, whether we have the "best" telephone system in the world -- something which could easily be challenged by references to other systems, if Chris knew more about them -- is perhaps of secondary importance to the question of who pays for the high level of services available (of which only a few are useful to the bulk of the population). The decision to lower long distance rates and raise local rates (via an access charge) has shifted the burden of paying for the public telecommunications network from large users to residential/small business users, to the tune of about four billion dollars a year or more. But the issue of technological policy is a larger one than the mere redistribution of monetary benefits and costs. It's a question of who gets to make policy. Perhaps I don't have Chris' broad knowledge of technology policy, but as a student of the history of technology for about twenty years, I certainly don't share his sunny optimism regarding the current system; history is not on the side of Chris' argument. Finally, I wouldn't throw around the label of "Luddite" so carelessly. In fact, as Montgomery has pointed out in TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE (MIT Press, 1974), the Luddites, who protested the automation of many craft activities, were ultimately successful not in forestalling technology but in mitigating its worst social effects. British working life, for awhile, became the most progressive and advanced in the world, with decent wages and relatively safe conditions, as a result of the Luddites' effect on British law. And this was while Britain was literally taking the world by storm. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot Date: 12 Jan 91 23:51:24 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab,