Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28626; 20 Jan 91 22:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26468; 20 Jan 91 20:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24392; 20 Jan 91 19:24 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #51 BCC: Message-ID: <9101201840.ab06563@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:41 CST Volume 11 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin] CNN Communications [John Keator, NPR, via John R. Covert] Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Charlie Lear] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Laird P. Broadfield] Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad Date: Sunday 20 January 1991 In recent Digest issues, readers have queried how CNN might have maintained its own broadcast quality audio lines back to the U.S., even when the "major powers" of network broadcasting could not. Others have raised issues about AT&T's presence in Baghdad, the use of "four-wire lines," and finding "four-wire" telephone subscriber sets. Here's my attempt to mingle practical background with recent news, in the hope it provides an accurate description of how such things are done. Along the way, I'll interject some oblique responses to the posts of several readers, in the hope it avoids a number of discontinuous postings. I hope those readers will catch the answers to their questions along the way: First, one must, if one does not already understand it, know that AT&T is *not* the powerhouse in foreign nations, particularly the Second and Third worlds that it is in North America. Each sovereign nation has its own national "telephone and telegraph" operation. These comprise the "Administrations" (notice the capital "A") of the CCITT; they are the only members of the CCITT with voting privilege. Even AT&T is not an "Administration" and does not get a vote. Any stockholder-owned communications company is merely a "Recognized Private Operating Agency," which can participate in discussion, but cannot vote on the standards. (In the case of the U.S., a delegate from the State Department casts *one* vote for the "Adminstration" of the U.S.; a vote that must represent the summed attitudes of all the *many* U.S. firms participating in discussion there. The point of all this is to make clear that the Iraqi PTT is *the* "phone company" in Iraq, and it has a stature equal to that of any other nation in the world, so far as the politics of telecommunications goes. Any circuits from other nations connected to Iraq's public telecommunications are simply "partners" from the distant end; the structure is virtually identical to railroads, in which each company owns half the track distance and splits the take with the other. How these splits are made is a significant part of the work of the CCITT. Thus, such communications channels as reach(ed) the U.S. from Iraq via AT&T, or MCI or Sprint or others, were simply "partner" deals along with the "partner" deals between the Iraqui PTT and perhaps dozens of other nations. In fact, it's doubtful that any U.S. carrier ever had enough traffic with Iraq to warrant owning its own "tracks" to Baghdad. In such cases, light dial traffic is simply switched via a third nation that does have its own facilities, in return for payment of a "transit fee" to that nation. Then, if traffic volume is sufficient, a deal will be struck with the third-party "transit" nation's common carrier to permanently wire through via tranmission channels of that nation, creating "direct" switched circuits (a great deal like the "direct" but non "non-stop" flights airlines like to tout). Thus, it is doubtful AT&T ever had a presence in Iraq to warrant having its own multi-story building in Baghdad to be bombed, as was posited in one post attributed by Ken Jongsma to wire service reports. Reporters have no better understanding of the structure of interna- tional communications than the general public, so calling the PTT building, "AT&T's building" is an understandable press error. Second, there's some need to understand somewhat how loose and cozy matters of importing and establishing telecommunications can be in some nations...when one is doing something desired by the politi- cal "powers that be." In this case, CNN had been doing something Saddam Hussein desired, for some time. They had been operating from Baghdad using fairly recent technology in what has been called "fly- away" transportable satellite earth stations. These have emerged in almost single (rather large) suitcase-sized earth stations, capable of both transmitting and receiving using rather small dishes. One reader mentioned that possibility, alluding to "maritime satellite" devices. In fact, Marisat, with its own globe-spanning fleet of transponder capacity up there in the sky, has been a leading promoter of sales for low-density (compared to public network needs) satellite communications to remote parts of the globe. (Yes, even Intelsat's "monopoly" is under competitive fire these days.) CNN had even previously used that technology in the Tienamen Square riots. What CNN had been doing in Baghdad was not only sending but re- ceiving its distribution program via satellite, much to Saddam Hus- sein's pleasure. I noticed a wire story just a day or so prior to the first attack on Baghdad describing how Hussein was enjoying seeing the U.S. news coverage and White House attitudes by way of CNN's "satellite station" in Baghdad. So, make up an equation of modern technology combined with some good old-fashioned politicking, and one can see how CNN was permitted to do so. No need to obtain rented facilities from "the phone company" in such a setting at all. So much for the surmises of rented transmission channels out to Amman or elsewhere. In a similar vein, there have also been ABC reports from Tel Aviv that seem to emanate from a similar privately-run earth station on the roof of ABC's location in that city. ABC seems to be somewhere down the road of making use of technology similar to CNN's. As to how CNN could have broadcast-quality audio and IFB from the stateside studio back (as you'll notice in those ABC feeds from Tel Aviv), a video link has typically two (and sometimes more) audio chan- nels multiplexed in with the video signal, so as long as CNN could keep its baseband on the satellite, even if there were no video being transmitted, they could maintain audio transmission of high quality, while, as several readers observed, the others were reduced to noisy, telephone-speech-quality circuits. It was possible to hear the early effects of bombing of the Iraqi PTT, as at first, the channels of the others, while limited to telephone channel bandwidth, were quite noise-free, then as facilities were destroyed, one could hear the connections made were coming via noisier and noisier facilities. This is consistent with the Iraqui PTT falling back to get transit connections via its nearby partner countries, perhaps Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the Emirates, and using its older, shorter-distance plant normally used for direct calls to those nations, and asking for transits to the U.S. In the Third World, such transits are not unusual and done (under permanent prearrangement) as a courtesy. "Courtesy? They're under attack from the world!" you say. But, one must bear in mind that getting a chance to hear anything juicy about what one of the belligerents is up to is something *every* gov- ernment (read "government PTT") wants to hear. Turn down a phone call from Iraq that just *might* tip off who Hussein is talking to; where he personally might be, is something nobody would miss the opportunity to intercept and report to their own government, in the hope of being remembered at salary review time! I personally found my calls to the U.S. from Zambia were tran- siting South Africa in a period when the South Africans were captur- ing guerillas from Zambia daily. It was obvious the wily South Af- ricans would extend that telecommunications courtesy in hopes some- thing of intelligence use might be intercepted. The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain. In the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation. The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army even had its own cableship into the Korean War era. Somehow, all the hype of today loses sight that the basic principles of telecommuni- cations signal intelligence (SIGINT) didn't wait for today's technology to be thought of. As to CNN reporters being "secretive" about their methods, it's more likely in my mind, they really didn't understand the techno- political methods that worked to their advantage any better than the average person, this they were much less secretive than unable to describe what CNN's "hit" had been. What was the "problem" of the other networks? More likely technology lag than anything else. You can bet there have been some hot meetings at NBC and CBS since the "CNN Baghdad event," and some flyaway earth station vendors probably already have orders with New York shipping addresses. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:56:06 PST From: "John R. Covert 20-Jan-1991 1858" Subject: CNN Communications From: John Keator, Telcom, National Public Radio, Washington Date: 20 Jan 91 Subject: CNN Communications A four-wire circuit is just that, two separate circuits for send and receive. It is very commonly used in broadcasting to connect a remote site to the main studio. Often several circuits will be set up: one for production use between the producer/director and another for engineering. Normally, the lines are connected to a so-called four-wire box, actually a small device made by Prospect Electronics in the UK, that allows the incoming line to be heard in a speaker/headphones and has a push to talk switch that allows the remote to talk to the studio. In addition, the box has a conferencing arrangement so that a second four-wire can be connected and the box can be optioned to allow the user to talk to either four-wire or both ... in the both position the two four-wires are linked together so everyone can hear and talk to everyone else. They are much in evidence on the recent shots from the middle east of technical setups in the various bureaus. They are about the size of half-a-loaf of bread, have a speaker and yellow and orange switches on the front and a gooseneck microphone on the top. In normal usage the program audio travels on a separate wide-band circuit to the studio either on a land line or satellite. The programing four-wire is normally used for IFB, interuptible feed back. This is fed to the small earpiece the reporter uses that allow him to hear the program on the air, less his own voice (due to satellite delay). In addition, the director at the studio can talk to the reporter telling him to cover a certain issue, throw it to another location or end his report. When not on the air the circuit is used for coordination and planning upcoming segments. In the CNN case, they had ordered the four-wire to Amman months ago for coordination on earlier satellite feeds. These feeds were not available, but the coordination connection was not disconnected and was put on the air for the famous broadcast. They did not use an Inmarsat portable uplink at the hotel; no one did that night, as they did not want to be sending radio waves in to the sky with all the missiles flying around ... who knows what they might home in on. The next day the BBC used one from the garden of the hotel, but I believe it was later confiscated. Legally, you need prior permission from the country to use an Inmarsat terminal for land mobile use, but many news companies had sneaked them in. John Keator NPR Work: 202 822 2800 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 20 Jan 91 16:58:17 NZD (Sun) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article <16147@accuvax.nwu.edu> linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu writes: >how wonderful CNN is). Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it, >and the reporter was quite secretive. >So how did they do it? My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed >multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from >Baghdad were disrupted. Any ideas? VSAT, or Very Small Aperture Terminal. Typically a 1.8m satellite dish, with associated electronics will sit happily on a single-axle trailer and be towed behind a car. They are used worldwide, with the highest concentration in Alaska, Yukon and North-West Territories. They are used by mining, timber, oil and exploration teams for semi-portable comms links between the camps and the outside world. Basically, the VSAT system provides one or more digital voice channels compressed and sent via FM to the satellite and back to any other earth station within the satellite's shadow. A typical scenario has a camp PABX, modem and fax all running into the VSAT terminal. Because the system does not interface with the PSTN until it leaves the earth station, miners in the Arctic can get local dialtone for Vancouver, Calgary, Seattle and anywhere else there is a compatible receiving system. Hence crystal clear voice communications when landlines are either nonexistent or very unreliable. I'd bet bucks that CNN used a VSAT to bypass the entire Iraqi PSTN and was getting Saudi or Israeli dialtone - maybe even further afield. One manufacturer / service provider is Infosat Telecommunications of Burnaby, Vancouver, BC. They are a subsidiary of Nexus and have supplied VSATs to a number of companies operating in the wilderness. Disclaimer: only association with Infosat was meeting with their people and looking over the factory as part of the Intercomm '90 conference. The technology impressed the hell out of me! Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 20 Jan 91 06:21:24 GMT In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these days, combined with the small size of cellular equipment (and presumably Iridium equipment, when it comes out) once Iridium exists, there will no longer be communication-type barriers to ENG (electronic-news-gathering.) Think about it: Take the motors, gears, and so forth out of one of those tiny Sony 8mm vtr-cameras, and what's left isn't much. Add back the size of a handheld cellular, and you're back to the original. Factor in the R&D that professional ENG customers can afford to pay for, and you've got *at least* still-frame buffering, and possibly compression and multi-banding sufficient for full motion. If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter present. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 3:00:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit? I received three messages today from people who said issues 43-44 did not seem to make it through to their site in the news. A fourth person yesterday said he had seen nothing at his site for a couple days ... It looks like someone from Usenet 'graciously' dumped issues 43-44 of comp.dcom.telecom into the bit bucket for me. :) If either or both of those issues did not reach you, please let me know so they can be transmitted again. If comp.dcom.telecom is not reliable at your site for some reason you can always write and ask to be added to the mailing list version instead. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #51 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29555; 20 Jan 91 23:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29164; 20 Jan 91 21:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26468; 20 Jan 91 20:30 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #52 BCC: Message-ID: <9101202014.ab01514@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Four-Wire Line [Bill Cerny] Re: Four-Wire Line [Richard Budd] Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [John R. Levine] Re: CLID Compatibility Question [Dave Levenson] Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [Ravinder Bhumbla] Data Interruption by Operator [Christopher Ambler] Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line Date: 20 Jan 91 00:51:38 GMT streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter) writes: >News reports mention a "four wire line." Could anyone enlighten me? Terrestial 4W line? Nah; rather a Marisat terminal (country code 873). Unfold an antenna on the roof, drop a lead over the ledge to your hotel room, plug in and talk to anyone in the U.S. for $4.00/min. This was quite obvious to me; but the Iraqis figured it out after eight hours. ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | Wham, bam, T-LAM! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:38 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Tom Streeter writes in TELECOM Digest V11 # 47: >There has been lots of talk around the College of Journalism about how >in the world CNN kept a phone line open during the bombing last night. >News reports mention a "four wire line." Could anyone enlighten me? and the Moderator commented: >[Moderator's Note: CNN is to be commended for *excellent* coverage in >the Gulf -- far better than any of the other networks. They have a >very elaborate setup involving a hardwired link to a transmitter which >in turn beams a signal to the United States. It costs a small fortune: >I've heard estimates of $15,000 - $20,000 per month for the link >itself, and more depending on the amount of usage. Perhaps someone >will post a more technical description of 'four wire' service. PAT] I cannot provide a technical description of their service, but I believe I caught a quick glimpse of it Thursday (1/17) night while watching CNN. While CNN was playing back B. Shaw, J. Holliman, and P. Arnett's bomb by bomb account of the beginning of the raid on Baghdad, CNN flashed a picture of their reporters standing in front of a box with a minature satellite dish sticking out from the upper front of it. CNN showed the picture for only five seconds so I could not examine it more in detail, but it appears to be the four-wire system mentioned by the Moderator. In fairness to the other networks, when Baghdad was hit on Wednesday night (Thursday morning Iraqi time), Iraqi security immediately herded journalists into the basement of the hotel where the latter were staying The security officers missed the CNN crew, who had hidden in their hotel room when the bombing started. The cost of telecommunications equipment and of continuous coverage of the Iraqi conflict was cited by {TV Guide} two weeks ago as the reason TV coverage of future hostilities would likely be dramatically reduced. It sounds like, from what I read in TELECOM Digest that the process is already beginning with the major networks obligated to receive information about the war from CNN. I may go as far to say that commercial television may go the way of radio, with a TV network (proba- bly CBS) becoming all news and other networks becoming more geared to certain profitable audiences. (This may not be directly a telecom issue but it demonstrates telecom's effect on what we will see on TV.) Incidentially, my news from the Persian Gulf has come exclusively from CNN and BBC World Services on short-wave. I almost never watch TV otherwise. MY {TV Guide} subscription comes from an incident four years ago when in a single month I had to ask somebody who Willard Scott and PeeWee Herman were. An embarrasing moment. Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others - klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest | Phone: (914) 578-3746 | All disclaimers apply ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 19 Jan 91 21:07:20 EST (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16195@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Mr. Van Buskirk, I was wondering what advantage >there is to AT&T to work through aggregators in this way? According to an article in {Data Communications} (not a bad magazine, available free to qualified readers) the AT&T aggregator business exists because of tariff peculiarities. AT&T can't cut their prices other than via Tariff 12, a cumbersome scheme that they use to make special deals with very large customers. There are few enough Tariff 12 customers that they were listed in a table in the article, and are all Fortune 100 companies. Other than that, all you get is list price volume discounts. The aggregator business allows AT&T to compete with other LD carriers for smallish but still price-sensitive accounts, since the price charged through the aggregator reflects the total volume of calls the aggregator sells. The scheme they use is actually one that was intended for companies that have many locations and want each location to be billed for its own calls. The aggregators resell this service, so the effect is that each of the aggregator's customers get a bill straight from AT&T, but at a lower price than they'd pay if they went direct. I forget how the aggregator makes money, either it's a fee they charge their customers, or AT&T rebates part of the ultimate customers' bills. AT&T is apparently finding all of this a headache, both because it's hard to administer (aggregator customers come and go much faster than the companies for whom the deal was intended open and close offices,) there are credit problems (whom do they go after if the customer doesn't pay) and there is of course complaining from the competitors that AT&T is undercutting their published prices. They are extremely reluctant to sign up any new aggregators at this point. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question Date: 20 Jan 91 03:37:44 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16200@accuvax.nwu.edu>, winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu (JOHN WINSLADE) writes: > Also, I had the impression that the Class-Mate was more or less a > passive device that demodulated the CLID data and converted it to > RS-232 compatible levels, and did not really do any heavy-duty data > conversion. Am I correct in assuming this. Thanks. The ClassMate appears to be a little more intelligent than that. When it is powered up, it outputs a four-line message in ASCII identifying itself, giving its firmware copyright notice and version information. It validates the checksum passed by the telco, but does not pass it along to the RS-232 port. It does pass a single character indicating the validity of each message. It appears to contain a modem (really, just a -dem) to demodulate the incoming caller id information, a buffer memory for one message, and a UART to talk to the RS-232 port. There is probably also a microprocessor that runs this stuff. It most-likely consists of a microcomputer -- one chip that contains ROM, RAM, and two serial ports. With such a device, one only needs the modem and the passive components to drive the serial port at RS-232 levels. 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 ax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again Date: 20 Jan 91 23:49:22 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <16204@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >[the usual call-blocking experience, followed by misinformation from >the operator about international call blocking >I remember a few months ago we were discussing this very same thing, >and if I recall correctly, a letter was sent to the chairman of AT&T >via AT&T mail (or AT&T's in-house system, if not the same). What ever >came of this? >[Moderator's Note: Don't you love the bogus and totally stupid stories >the AT&T operators make up about these things? Don't waste time with >them or their supervisors. Some time back I had had the same trouble trying to call India and had been told the same answer - "the call-blocking is at the request of the country being called". At the advice of the Moderator and on receiving the e-mail address from another reader (I think it was reallen@attmail.com - correct me if I am wrong), I had sent e-mail to this address. I had protested the blocking and the fact that the operators were lying to me. I received a call from the local AT&T office a couple of days later. The lady apologized, said it was due to high rate of fraud, and said that if I had trouble in the future, I could mention her name and ask the operator/supervisor to override the call blocking. I was also told that I would be receiving written communication separately from Mr. Allen (which, by the way, I never did). I had posted all this in this newsgroup. Coincidentally, last week I had to dial India from a friend's home phone. I tried to use my AT&T Universal Card but after I entered the card number, the call was intercepted by an operator. She told me that her computer showed that this call was not permitted. I protested that this was not even a payphone, but she was unyielding. Then I remembered my previous experience and repeated the whole thing to her including the the name of the representative who had called me. I mentioned that the representative had advised me to ask the operator to override the blocking. To my surprise, the operator immediately agreed. However, it is impossible to get through to India on the first attempt and I had to call again. Again it was intercepted by an operator (I don't know if it was the same one), and she put the call through without any further questions. So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or contact the local AT&T office. That way you might be able to talk to the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need to. I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619) 534-7894 [Moderator's Note: Let me repeat that email address which flashed across your screen a second ago in case you missed it, or didn't have your pencil handy: reallen@attmail.com. I certainly do not condone long distance billing fraud, however this business of refusing service to all credit card users because of the acts of a few phreaks is wrong. Even if they refuse service to pay phones, why are they also refusing service to private phones where the responsible party can easily be identified? Bank cards and other credit cards rely on either the physical presence of the card when the transaction is going on *or* the PIN, as in the case of bank ATM cards, or both. Why can't AT&T rely on the PIN as a reasonable assurance the card is being used by its rightful owner unless they are otherwise notified it is stolen? When used with a card reader type phone, why can't the presence of the card and the PIN serve as adequate proof for AT&T? Instead of solving the fraud problem, AT&T is taking an easy way out: just blackball anyone calling several foreign countries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) Subject: Data Interruption by Operator Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:36 GMT Reply-To: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) This is realy starting to bug me. I have a data line that I use for calling into the University computer from home to do my work. I've given the number to some people, telling them that if my voice line is busy, try this number, if I'm not on the computer, I'll answer it. Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line. Result: carrier lost, phone rings. I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line, they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now clear, ring through. HIGHLY ANNOYING! Is there any way to have my number permenantly barred from breakthroughs? (And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I just want to stop it). Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@erotica.fubarsys.com FSUUCP Mailing list: fsuucp@polyslo.calpoly.edu Requests to: fsuucp-request@polyslo.calpoly.edu [Moderator's Note: If you are served by one of the newer ESS offices, then your line can be fixed to disallow operator intercepts, out of order / busy verifications, etc. But you don't really want that. Instead, have the number on your second line changed to something non-pub, and have it hunted when the first line is busy. That way the busy first line will automatically forward a second call to the other line if it is not busy with a data call. And chances are, someone will ask you 'what is the new number for your second line ... I tried the one you gave me and it was disconnected.' ... you'll find out who was doing the emergency interupts on you in the process. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 19:47:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? I was wondering what effect the announcement of the start of the war had on local phone systems last week? I was down at the Chicago Public Library doing some production work for the Chicagoland Radio Information Service. (This is a closed circuit SCA radio station serving the visually handicapped residents in northern Illinois; I've done work for them for several years.) Someone came in my recording studio and told me we were at war ... I watched the television for a couple minutes then tried to call my home. The library centrex (312-269) was giving very slow dial tone, and the first few attempts I made were met with re-order or an 'all circuits are busy now' recording. I used my cell phone and had the call bounce a couple times also; but it went through on the third try. Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war, connections here appear to be moving smoothly. What experiences did you have in other places? On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all with news? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #52 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01713; 21 Jan 91 1:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12973; 20 Jan 91 23:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25053; 20 Jan 91 22:36 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:31:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Index to Telecom Archives, 1-20-91 BCC: Message-ID: <9101202131.ab22132@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Dear Readers of TELECOM Digest, I spent several hours over the weekend organizing and updating the Telecom Archives. With the help of several readers, many missing issues of the Digest from 1981 through 1988 were located and the back issues file is now virtually intact once again. Some of the early volumes are still a little mixed up in the way the issues were filed, but at least we now have them available. Generally speaking the only troublesome area is volume 5. You'll need to search that one sort of carefully to find specific issues. Below is the main directory and the various sub-directories in the Archives. These are printed here mainly as a convenience to readers who lack ftp-capability at their site and need to use an archives server. Internet readers can of course obtain these same directories while on line. To use the Telecom Archives: Internet: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous password: yourname@yoursite cd telecom-archives then usual ftp commands UUCP / Fido / Bitnet / ATT-MCI Mail / others: (all except Bitnet) Send letter to 'bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu (Bitnet readers) Send letter to 'bitftp@pucc.bitnet' The subject does not matter. In the text of the letter, put FTP commands one after another down the left margin, followed by the appropriate argument; i.e. FTP lcs.mit.edu USER anonymous PASS yourname@yoursite ASCII CD telecom-archives GET (file names, using indexes below) GET (more file names, etc) BYE A help file is available giving detailed instructions for using the archives mail server at Princeton. Instead of the above commands, send a letter to the archives server address (bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu) and in the text of the letter, put the single word: HELP on the first line at the left hand margin. You will receive the detailed help file back by return mail. Warning to UUCP readers in particular: Some of the archives files are *huge*, especially the back issues files. Before you have something like this sent to you (they will come in several parts in the form of 'letters') be certain to talk to your sysadmin and get an okay since these large files may cause your UUCP neighbor to get angry with you. I've got a copy of the archives server help file, and will send it on request if you have a problem obtaining it from the source. Here is the updated directory as of Sunday night, 1-20-91: total 36192 drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:38 ./ drwxrwxr-x 24 root wheel 1024 Jan 20 01:01 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 500 Sep 8 23:46 1981.intro.to.archives -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 423659 Dec 16 23:26 1981.vol1.most.issues -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 620814 Dec 16 23:29 1982.vol2.iss001-088 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 382277 Jan 14 1990 1982.vol2.iss089-141 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 619185 Jan 20 16:52 1983.vol3.iss001-083 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 364946 Jan 20 16:55 1983.vol3.iss084-128 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 618694 Jan 20 17:27 1984.vol4.iss001-075 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411337 Dec 10 01:31 1984.vol4.iss064-118 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 169101 Dec 10 01:03 1984.vol4.iss119-140 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 127814 Dec 10 01:45 1985.vol4.iss142-154 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 357252 Dec 10 02:36 1985.vol4.iss155-208 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 658 Jan 27 1990 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 623292 Jan 27 1990 1985.vol5.iss001-076 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 74260 Jan 20 16:37 1985.vol5.misc.msgs -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861286 Jan 27 1990 1986.vol5.iss077-161 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 639112 Jan 26 1990 1987.vol6.most.issues -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 274580 Jan 20 1990 1987.vol7.complete.set -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 371 Jan 20 17:55 1987.vol8.READ-ME-FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 577639 Jan 20 17:47 1987.vol8.iss001-071 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 73630 Jan 20 18:13 1988.misc.telecom.msgs -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 726882 Jan 20 15:56 1988.vol8.iss070-139 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 724832 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 227589 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 577173 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss001-049 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 564262 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss050-100 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 653097 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss101-150 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 637611 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss151-200 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 744800 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss201-250 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 787166 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss251-300 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 805328 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss301-350 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 780366 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss351-400 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 784366 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss401-450 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 758330 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss451-500 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 794183 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss501-550 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 856691 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss551-603 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861272 Jan 28 1990 1990.vol10.iss001-050 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 820574 Feb 14 1990 1990.vol10.iss051-100 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 842877 Mar 8 1990 1990.vol10.iss101-150 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 855090 Mar 24 1990 1990.vol10.iss151-200 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 853551 Apr 13 1990 1990.vol10.iss201-250 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 908585 May 1 1990 1990.vol10.iss251-300 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 873608 May 16 1990 1990.vol10.iss301-350 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 858605 May 31 1990 1990.vol10.iss351-400 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 919538 Jun 23 1990 1990.vol10.iss401-450 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 885056 Jul 20 1990 1990.vol10.iss451-500 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 863414 Aug 8 23:06 1990.vol10.iss501-550 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 886042 Aug 29 00:59 1990.vol10.iss551-600 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 974899 Sep 17 01:25 1990.vol10.iss601-650 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 870218 Oct 1 01:51 1990.vol10.iss651-700 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 868902 Oct 22 02:49 1990.vol10.iss701-750 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 902018 Nov 10 16:03 1990.vol10.iss751-800 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 880896 Nov 28 19:05 1990.vol10.iss801-850 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 867675 Dec 23 13:07 1990.vol10.iss851-900 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 133082 Jan 1 05:10 1990.vol10.iss901-908 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 893021 Jan 20 16:24 1991.vol11.iss001-050 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 953 Jan 31 1990 READ.ME.FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25799 Sep 12 19:47 abernathy.internet.story -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68224 Nov 20 10:26 aos-rules.procedures -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 18238 Nov 9 03:37 area.214-903.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21264 Apr 14 1990 area.code.script.new -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32645 May 31 1990 areacode.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 8147 Aug 1 1989 areacode.program.in.c -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 474 Feb 11 1990 att.service.outage.1-90 -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 18937 Aug 1 1989 auto.coin.collection -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4788 Jun 10 1990 books.about.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21702 Nov 20 10:24 braux.bill.call.blocking -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 61504 Jul 30 01:56 caller-id-legal-decision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39449 Dec 14 21:20 cellular.carrier.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17016 Aug 5 08:07 cellular.phones-iridium -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 15141 Aug 1 1989 cellular.sieve -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 298 May 31 1990 cellular.west.germany -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16292 Mar 18 1990 class.ss7.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15023 Sep 30 18:35 cocot-in-violation-label -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38981 Oct 12 00:09 cocot.complaint.sticker -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70477 Sep 5 22:02 computer.bbs.and.the.law -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 23944 Aug 1 1989 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9150 Jan 31 1990 country.code.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11370 Feb 9 1990 country.codes.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11267 Feb 25 1990 cpid-ani.developments -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 436 Feb 23 1990 deaf.communicate.on.tdd -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15877 Sep 1 21:14 dial.tone.monopoly -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28296 Sep 29 18:34 dialup.access.in.uk -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39319 Aug 1 1989 docket.87-215 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16367 Sep 1 21:20 e-series.recommendations -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3422 Jan 20 1990 early.digital.ESS -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 1 1989 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 4 18:58 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39956 Jul 14 1990 electronic.frontier -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20660 Sep 5 22:02 email.privacy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 enterprise-funny-numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 19836 Nov 20 10:32 fax.products.for.pc -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 33239 Aug 1 1989 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 19378 Aug 1 1989 fcc.threat -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 484 Jan 14 1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9052 Aug 1 1989 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 47203 Aug 1 1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1998 Jan 27 1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 377 Jan 27 1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1247 Feb 10 1990 first.issue.cover -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14105 Nov 24 12:05 genie.star-service -rw-r--r-- 1 map telecom 52981 Jan 18 17:23 glossary.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 42188 Jan 14 1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67113 Jan 14 1990 glossary.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68804 Feb 2 1990 hi.perf.computing.net -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2337 Jan 27 1990 history.of.digest -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32625 Mar 29 1990 how.numbers.are.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15302 Jan 20 16:21 how.to.post.msgs.here -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1616 Nov 20 11:39 index-canada.npa.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411 Nov 20 11:43 index-minitel.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Jan 20 18:39 index-telecom.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1326 Jan 20 18:33 index-telecom.security -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12896 Nov 20 10:30 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4816 Aug 1 1989 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 801 Aug 1 1989 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2271 Aug 1 1989 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 13675 Aug 1 1989 ldrates.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12260 Jan 20 1990 london.ac.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12069 Mar 5 1990 london.codes.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15604 Aug 1 1989 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 463 Aug 1 1989 measured-service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 11:41 minitel.info/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 36641 Aug 1 1989 mnp.protocol -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2450 Jan 20 1990 modems.and.call-waiting -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 7597 Feb 10 1990 named.exchanges -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16590 Oct 21 09:47 net.mail.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3014 Jan 27 1990 newuser.letter -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32815 Mar 25 1990 nine.hundred.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45467 Nov 20 10:29 npa.800-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13779 Sep 19 20:13 npa.800.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 33440 May 12 1990 npa.809.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15488 Nov 20 10:28 npa.900-carriers.assigned drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 14 18:50 npa.exchange.list-canada/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16534 Feb 11 1990 nsa.original.charter-1952 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9886 Jan 23 1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8593 May 5 1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14354 Aug 12 14:10 octothorpe.gets.its.name -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2756 Jan 27 1990 old.hello.msg -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70153 Aug 1 1989 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 5492 Aug 1 1989 pearl.harbor.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38772 Aug 1 1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17950 Jan 14 1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9764 Jan 20 1990 starline.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 46738 Jan 18 1990 starlink.vrs.pcp -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 103069 Apr 26 1990 sysops.libel.liability -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3857 Aug 1 1989 tat-8.fiber.optic -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27533 Feb 9 1990 telco.name.list.formatted -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31487 Jan 28 1990 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Jan 20 16:26 telecom-recent drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 2 21:19 telecom.security.issues/ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21831 Jan 20 14:32 telsat-canada-report -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 11752 Aug 1 1989 telstar.txt drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.information/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 26614 May 29 1990 unitel-canada.ld.service -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 116 Oct 22 02:44 white.pages -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 37947 Aug 1 1989 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4101 Aug 1 1989 wiring.diagram -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24541 Aug 1 1989 zum.debate Note: The 'telecom-recent' file contains the most recent issues of the Digest as they are delivered daily through the mail. If you have missed a recent issue, you will find it here. This file is flushed after every fifty issues with the contents renamed "YEAR.volX.issXXX-YYY'. The 51st, 101st, 151st, 201st, 251st, etc issues of each volume are the starting point in 'telecom-recent'. For example, it was cut off after the 50th issue of Volume 11 this weekend. Please report errors in filing or file-naming which come to your attention so they can be corrected. ------------------- Here are the sub directories referenced above: total 608 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 2 21:19 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:30 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27395 Jun 23 1990 craig.neidorf.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9354 Jul 30 02:18 craig.not.guilty -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67190 Jun 23 1990 crime.and.puzzlement -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 12 14:29 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 12 14:32 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21918 Dec 2 21:20 illinois.computer.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28935 May 19 1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 1990 kevin.polsen -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 1990 legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20703 Aug 12 16:16 len.rose.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67099 Nov 4 01:11 telecom.usa.call.block-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31995 Nov 20 10:34 telecom.usa.call.block-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10833 Nov 20 10:23 telecom.usa.call.block-3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14821 Sep 12 19:19 war.on.computer.crime ---------------------- total 228 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Nov 20 11:39 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 4608 Nov 20 11:28 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Nov 20 11:39 index.to.canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1351 Feb 4 1990 introduction-canada.lists -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15019 Apr 22 1990 npa.204.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14708 Apr 22 1990 npa.306.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17978 Apr 14 1990 npa.403.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15907 Jul 20 22:31 npa.416.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15592 Feb 3 1990 npa.418.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10441 May 26 08:17 npa.506.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11647 Feb 2 1990 npa.514.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13538 Sep 12 18:55 npa.519.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16701 Jul 20 22:32 npa.604.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12444 Mar 29 1990 npa.613.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12016 Feb 2 1990 npa.705.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12899 May 3 1990 npa.709.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 5566 Feb 7 1990 npa.800.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10479 May 5 1990 npa.807.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15645 Feb 3 1990 npa.819.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12839 Mar 29 1990 npa.902.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1762 Apr 11 1990 updates.to.above.files ------------------- total 60 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 02:49 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:38 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25098 Dec 2 21:23 inbound-outbound.rates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3979 Dec 2 21:23 tymdial-9.6-links -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24577 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.outdials ------------------- total 241 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 11:41 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 4608 Nov 20 11:42 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11736 Apr 22 1990 dial-up.numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 95917 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 94305 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 22688 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu3 ------------------- My special thanks go to Mike Patton and MIT for providing the space needed for the archives, and to the several of you who have contributed files there. Enjoy! Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08368; 21 Jan 91 6:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01787; 21 Jan 91 4:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29678; 21 Jan 91 3:47 CST Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 3:04:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #53 BCC: Message-ID: <9101210304.ab15318@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jan 91 03:04:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone [TELECOM Moderator] CNN Straight story [Edward Hopper] Japanese Payphones [John Higdon] Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent [Ralph Sims] AT&T ACUS Service [David R. Zinkin] What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling? [David R. Zinkin] Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 22:27:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone Centel has turned over its local telephone company operations in Iowa and Minnesota to Rochester Telephone Corporation of Rochester, NY for $100 million in cash, ten percent of Rochester Tel's stock and minority ownership of Rochester Tel's cellular telephone franchises. The transaction, which affects 85,000 telephone lines in Minnesota and 50,000 in Iowa is in keeping with Centel's move away from local telephone service and into cellular service according to John P. Frazee, Jr., Centel's chairman and chief executive officer. Centel is acquiring a minority share in various cellular systems serving 630,000 subsribers in exchange for its local telcos. Rochester Telephone is the parent company of 33 telephone companies. The $100 million it is paying to Centel in the deal will help Centel pay its taxes and reduce its outstanding debts. The specific areas affected by the change of ownership are suburban Minneapolis, central and western Minnesota, and northern and western Iowa. Centel employees in those locations are being transferred to Rochester Telephone as part of their continued employment. The majority, but not all of the cellular systems Centel will acquire in the deal serve rural areas around the USA. Centel will continue to maintain its corporate headquarters in the northwest Chicago suburban area. Regulatory approval is being sought now, and the transition is expected to be complete by June, 1991. PAT ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Sun Jan 20 22:31:33 CST 1991 Subject: CNN Straight Story I spoke to a friend who works for CNN in Atlanta (he's been on 13 hour days since the outbreak of war). A couple of points: 1. The four-wire circuit was from Baghdad to Amman. This was definitely the method Shaw/Holliman/Arnett used to talk to the rest of the world. CNN had a fly-away in Amman, they did not have a fly-away in Baghdad. (A fly-away is a video-capable satellite earth station small enough to be shipped as luggage. Lots of luggage, but luggage on an airliner. 2. They may have had a MARISAT phone with them, but he does not believe they used it. A MARISAT phone is a radiotelephone with a VSAT type antenna for satellite communications. Also, there was some statements in Digest #51 that implied that the technology CNN had in Baghdad was how the Iraqi government was receiving CNN and by that method information on what is going on in Washington. In fact, CNN is a world wide network. Anyone with a TVRO anywhere in the world can pick up CNN. I don't know, but I doubt that CNN is scrambled in that part of the world. CNN is available in most first class hotels around the world. It is also monitored by most foreign (or to use Ted Turner's euphemism - international) ministries. Saddam Hussein, King Hussein, King Fahd and many others have been loyal CNN viewers for years. While this is straying farther and farther from the purpose of this forum, there was an "aiding the enemy" tone to one item that required correction. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Japanese Payphones Date: 20 Jan 91 20:52:30 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Here is a look at coin phones in the REALLY big city -- Tokyo. No one has as I recall mentioned these on the Digest lately. The standard issue phone is green. Not pale green, but a bright flourescent knock-out shade that seems to be popular in Japan. Pink phones are "dumb" COCOTs that are found in small stores and eating establishment. Yellow and blue phones are older, less capable units that are increasingly difficult to find. All green phones have one thing in common: a card reader that accepts a stored value card that can be obtained in various denominations, up to 500 "call units". A call unit is the equivalent of 10 yen, the minimum required to "start" a call. A "local" call will exhaust a unit within a few minutes, whereas an international call will require a number of units per minute. Calls throughout Japan fall anywhere in between. The cards are readily available, including at some vending machines attached to green phones themselves. In attition to cards, most (but not all) green phones will accept 10 and 100 yen coins. While it is much more convenient to place an expensive call with a phone card, it is still possible to use coins. Green phones with a gold faceplate will allow you to dial anywhere in the world, depositing coins as you go or with the ultra convenience of the stored value card. Physically, the instruments come in many shapes and sizes, with the largest comparable to a Las Vegas slot machine (other comparisons not intended), down to the smallest which is not much larger than a standard telephone. The smaller ones are usually incapable of accepting coins. The handsets sport a noise-cancelling transmitter, and as a result are wonderful to use in noisy locations such as street corners. All green phones appear to use DTMF back to the CO. One other small difference between the NTT coin phones and US utility phones is that coin return is a local operation. If the coin was not collected by the CO, it is returned instantly when the receiver is replaced on an incomplete call. This is almost disconcerting when one is used to the small delay on domestic phones which must wait for the DC signal from the CO to return the coins. With the exceptional convenience of Japanese coin phones, there is a downside. As others have reported, calls do not go through in Japan with the reliability of the US telephone network. The percentage of failure (silence, reorder, wrong number) is significant enough to be irritating to the US user. And this is true even on NTT's newest digital exchanges. No one could offer any explanation of this and some residents were even surprised that anyone would notice. Ironically, one of the major deficiencies of NTT (lack of itemized billing -- available now at extra cost) contributes to the convenience of the coin telephones. From gold-faceplate phones, it matters not where you call. The only thing that differentiates one call from another is how fast the meter pulses tick away (one per "unit" of 10 yen). Hence, it is irrelavent how the call is paid for. A display on the front of the phone shows how many units remain. If it gets low, you deposit more yen. If it runs out, you get cut off. There is no operator who comes on the line to ask for more money. A small criticism of the card system would be concerning the lack of a recall button. When making a series of calls, one must hang up after each one and remove the card (serenaded by the most strident "b'beep-b'beep" that goes on for several seconds), then re-insert it. Socially, this may be more of a feature than a bug, since there is usually some sort of line of folks waiting to use the phone and this cacophony of beeping would alert those patiently waiting to someone making an unacceptable number of calls or call attempts. My preferance would be for a recall button. I really liked the stored value card system. It is puzzling as to why it was never introduced here. But then, more than card readers would have to be installed; the rate structure would have to change drastically. In Japan, calls cost virtually the same whether placed from NTT coin phones or from standard business or residential phones. This is certainly not true in the US. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent From: Ralph Sims Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:29:02 PST Organization: The 23:00 News An unknown number of US West subscribers were silenced in rural Mason County Washington today when all of a sudden their phones were dead. No dial, no nothing. Nothing coming in. Nothing going out. It is estimated a hundred subscribers were affected. Affected were not only residential subscribers, but a portion of a fire department's emergency dispatch center. Mason County does not have E-911, relying on the basic package. Our fire department maintains seven-digit emergency lines in addition to a ring-down cicruit to and from the 911 'center' (called a 4PLNT circuit). In all, seven circuits were lost, including one entire community's emergency line access, as we are the 911 Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) for them. All of the affected lines came into the fire department dispatch center via 'SLICK 96' (perhaps SLCC-96) equipment. This equipment is serviced by 600' of overhead secondary power lines and then about 300' of underground. Total length of downtime was about three hours. The cause? A squirrel had climbed the a power pole and shorted the power company's transformer, killing the electric feed to US West's equipment. Not much of the animal was left. The power outage had remained un-detected as US West was the only customer fed by that transformer. Batteries in the 'slick' had kept the unit operational until they died. It is not known when the squirrel was toasted. halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) ralphs@halcyon.uucp or ralphs@halcyon.wa.com The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron) ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:56:08 GMT My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the beginning of February. The alleged benefits of the service are: -- A private access code for each student (usable from any telephone on campus) -- Lower rates -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great benefit" of the service) Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask fellow net'ters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this service? Has anyone used it extensively? I'd like to be prepared for when it's activated. Thanks... David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling? Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:51:18 GMT I've been reading messages for the past couple of days about AT&T blocking calls to certain countries, supposedly to prevent the phone "phreakers" from completing their tasks. What purpose does this serve? I was under the impression that the vast majority of phone phreaking relates to calls *within* the country, not to foreign countries. Is AT&T going to tell me I can't call certain states? (Hope NY isn't one of them!) David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. [Moderator's Note: It is doubtful they would block calls *to* any certain US destinations. Domestic calls are cheaper, the domestic telcos cooperate with one another investigating toll-fraud, and the recipient of the call most likely speaks English, making it easier for the Security Department to interogate the recipient. They do block calls *from* some domestic locations however -- the payphones at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City being one example. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again Date: 20 Jan 91 21:44:31 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Ravinder Bhumbla writes: > So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or > contact the local AT&T office. That way you might be able to talk to > the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need > to. I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general. You will recall a short time back that GTE Mobilnet had blocked (and still does) IDDD from its mobile customers. A number of us who make such calls bitterly complained and each one of us had IDDD reinstated on our mobile units. Mobilnet did this quite readily without much of a stink. Obviously, this is a tactic used by some common carriers to deal with certain types of fraud: turn a service off to the general subscribership and then reinstate it on a need-to-have basis individually. Somehow this seems to be a cheap and dirty way to solve a problem. Rather than use creative means to improve security, the solution is to just inconvenience the customers. It is a trend that goes on in this country because we, the public, permit it. In telecommunications, as with everything else, service to the customer has become a meaningless concept. The customer is now expected to be grateful to receive any value at all for his dollar, the terms being dictated by the convenience and whim of the seller. The customer is always right? Wrong! The customer is some scum that whose sole purpose is to provide revenue to the company. You and I are guilty of allowing this to fester by our passive acceptance of this treatment. This is still the land of capitalism, and until everything is "run by the government" (another trend, suitable for discussion elsewhere), we the people are still able to vote and speak with our pocketbooks. Instead of worrying about the tastefulness or sensitivity of commercials, the politics of the company's philanthopic gestures, or other, irrelavent issues, let us be sure that we, the customers, are receiving product suitable to our needs, provided in a professional manner with noticable concern our satisfaction. I could not care one twit whether AT&T's spots are relavent, competent, or material. But being a user of international long distance, I care whether that service is available in a timely and convenient manner. If AT&T cannot provide it, then I (an otherwise heavy AT&T customer) will take that business elsewhere and will let AT&T know why. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I am coming <> to yanking my business from AT&T and giving it to some other carrier for this very reason and others. I go into the phone center store on Devon Avenue to buy a simple $50 phone over the weekend. Charge my AT&T equipment account, I ask them. The clerk spends ** fifteen minutes ** on the phone with 'credit' somewhere ... and they can't find my account, even when I read them the number from the bill for $20-plus they send me every three months for a two-line turn-button set I still lease. Finally I left and went down the street to Radio Shack and bought the phone. But you know the really sad thing, John? You could quit them, I could quit them, *everyone on this list could quit them* !! and they wouldn't know the difference. I get *five* monthly bills from AT&T: Two for my cellular phones' long distance because AT&T says they can't be combined; one from AT&T Mail; one for phone leasing; one long distance bill. That is only my personal accounts -- my office gets a few more. Had they figured out a way to sell me the phone in the store Saturday I'd start getting a sixth monthly bill for that. AT&T won't accept their own card for their store and forward service; for international calls to several countries or for *anywhere* if god forbid I should be standing at a payphone in the wrong place. I should give them the whole works back with 'thanks, but no thanks, let me know when you are in a position to serve customers without lying to them and wasting their time.' PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #53 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03187; 22 Jan 91 4:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05622; 22 Jan 91 3:13 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11618; 22 Jan 91 2:08 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 2:00:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #54 BCC: Message-ID: <9101220200.ab11470@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:00:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44 [TELECOM Moderator] CNN Live from Baghdad [Gary Segal] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Bob Sherman] War and the Net [Mark Steiger] Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Piet van Oostrum] Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN) [Mark Brader] Foxhole Payphones? What Next? [Donald E. Kimberlin] 'AT&T Building' in Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 0:51:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44 This is just a note to our Usenet readers to let you know that issues 43 and 44 were re-transmitted Monday night .... the 23 messages just prior to this one (assuming all got delivered in order) were the ones you missed last week. They carried dates of January 14-16, and all were redated to say January 21 so they would be retained for at least a day or two at your sites. To the folks who now got two copies of those messages: sorry!. But from the three dozen messages I got today saying those issues were not delivered, I'm of the impression most of the net didn't see them at all. A second mailing was NOT done to the mailing list -- just to the Usenet side. PAT ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: CNN Live from Baghdad Date: 21 Jan 91 04:21:58 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division The following article contains some information about the means used by CNN to maintain contact to Baghdad. While some of the information is not totally correct, there is still some usefull clues as to how CNN talked to Baghdad live; while the world listened. If you are new to telecom, please be aware that a two-wire phone line does not work by having "one going out and one going in," but "mixes" both the outgoing and incomming signals on the one pair, while a four-wire line uses one pair for each direction of communication. Also, two-wire lines are made of the exactly the same type copper as four-wire lines. ----------------- From "The Chicago Tribune," Friday, January 18, 1991 "Early Planning Helped CNN Register a Television Coup" Section 1, page 9 By James Warren Chicago Tribune Atlanta - The Cable News Network's dominating coverage of the Gulf War's opening was not luck. Although scens of reporters in gas masks in Israel on Thursday night give visual immediacy to coverage that was missing the night before, CNN's early coup Wednsesday was still memorable - and unexplained. It came from the four-wire, a private dedicated phone line that doesn't go through standard phone systems. The Iragi invasion of Kuwait began Aug 2. By September, CNN was gearing for possible war coverage from a besieged Baghdad. Richard Tauber, CNN's director of satellites and circuits, first went to Jordan and began dealings with its TV and radio ministry since CNN ultimately would have to transmit from Jordan to the U.S. He also talked to the Jordanian Telecommunications Corp., because the four-wire would have to run essentialy between Baghdad and Jordan. CNN's mission to Iraq was more difficult, and Iraqi approval did not come quickly. According to CNN executives, the Iraqi ministries of information and telecommunications were split on whether to permit it. But CNN's growing reputation won the day, and subsequent similar requests by other networks were spurned. "CNN is seen around the world," Tauber said. "Saddam [Hussein] knows that. When the Jordanians fianally put in the order [for the phone line], the Iraqis said O.K." "Did we lose the four-wire?" Richard Tauber called out Thursday morning amid the din at Cable News Netowrk here, alluding to a cutoff in contact with reporters in Baghdad. At 10 a.m. Chicago time Thursday, Tauber had learned that the Iraqi government had, at least for the moment, ended transmissions of CNN reporters Peter Arnett, John Holliman and Bernard Shaw from their 9th floor room in a Baghdad hotel. Eight hours later, Tauber's worry momentarily took a back seat to those of CNN colleagues in Israel. As fears of a nerve gas attack played out, viewers watched and listened while Larry Register, CNN's Jerusalem bureau cheif, was sternly ordered to close windows that had been opened in order to get a better view of the city. The reporters in the bureau room soon would don gas masks and talk to editors in Atlanta, giving firsthand reports on the frightening prospect of a nerve-gas attack just down the street. The four-wire constiuted expensive foresight critical to the Baghdad coverage of the initial allied assault. It explains why CNN could draw unpreccedented ratings and so humble its competition that CBS made a rather notable request Thursday to a ten-year old rival once ridiculed as "Chicken Noodle News." CBS' Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt, executive producer of "60 Minutes," called a top CNN executive to see if Arnett, Holliman and Shaw could be made available for Sundays' "60 Minutes." For sure, there was ample intrinsic merit in the generally unruffled, highly detailed performance by the trio, who were involuntarily dispatched with other journalists to the hotel basement for much of Thursday by Iraqi authorities. But they could have never recounted the bombings without both a bigh help of Tauber, a certifiable "techie," and the consent of Hussein's underlings. Normal American phones work on two lines, with one going out and one going in. If two people talk at the same time, they won't hear one another very well. The four-wire, made of copper, has two lines going each way. It was run from a speaker phone placed in the CNN hotel room to the local phone company office. A speaker's voice goes through the line to a nearby microwave transmitter. From there, it's bounced to a local phone company in Amman, Jordan. A microwave transmitter in Amman sends the signal via stellite to a ground staion in Etam, W. Va., and then via AT&T to two phone circuits in New York. The folks in Atlanta, headquarters of CNN, can "patch into" those circuits and talk to the hotel room from the newsroom (all in about one-quarter of a second). If you have trouble programming your VCR at home, that will all seem truly baffling. It's also a lot more expensive. The basic cost to CNN for just having the service has been $15,000 a month since October. But it was a prime reason CNN could transmit with faily good sound quality Thursday when others could not. Of course, there was another reason: The Iraqis didn't pull the plug. Indeed, the line sitll hasn't been pulled. If one ambled by CNN's foreign desk Thursday, one realized that the line was still working and open. The problem is that the government is barring CNN's trio from using it. By Thusday night, CNN officals could not be sure of their group's safety. CNN President Tom Hohnson indicated that he had discussed the matter of CNN's continuing presence in Baghdad with both Gen. Colin Powell, chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marlin Fitzwater, White House press secretary. One specific topic was apparently a rumor, passed to CNN by an NBC executive, that the hotel was on a list Thursday night of allied bombing targets. That was untrue, Johnson was told. Meanwhile, CNN's Wednsday coverage resulted in a huge ratings leap. One can't fairly compare ratings of the broadcast networks with the different universe of cable. But CNN's Wednesday numbers smashed its pervious prime-time record (Tuesday night) by 150 percent and was 1,000 percent greater than its December average. One estimate gave CNN 11.2 million viewers, or a 19.1 rating in the cable system. But it didn't account for the many CNN radio and TV affiliates, like Chicago superstaion WGN-Ch. 9, which made ample use of the coverage. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2348 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Organization: Not much! Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:12:30 GMT In <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob >Sherman) writes: >> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. >Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? >I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. My initial remark was posted the night before ALL journalists were expelled from Iraq. As best I know Peter left when ordered to by the government the next day. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:42:18 CST From: Mark Steiger Subject: War and the Net Will the war in the middle east be affecting the "allowed" net traffic or perhaps shutting it down completely?? [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142 300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)] Internet: Penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com MCI Mail: MSteiger UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin ATT Mail: MSteiger ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo America Online: Goalie5 TELEX: 51623155 MSTEIGER [Moderator's Note: Let's certainly hope not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Date: 21 Jan 91 12:11:18 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands This weekend I saw an interesting note in a newspaper about telecommunications used by some journalists. I don't know if it applies to CNN but it surely was interesting. They have two briefcases, one containing a portable satellite antenna (lloks like an upside down umbrella), and one with a computer. They rent a hotelroom with a window on the south side (or north on the southern hemisphere), and when they want to make a phone call, they direct the antenna to the satellite, type in their user number and password, and make the phone call. No dependency on local telephone companies, state censors, etc. The satellite used is Inmarsat (if I remember the name correctly), that is mainly used for maritime telephone traffic. They must have arranged a subscription on the satellite, of course. 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: iet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:05:00 -0500 From: Mark Brader Subject: Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to > the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain. > In the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's > submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation. > The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army > even had its own cableship into the Korean War era. ... My recollection of reading Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmermann Telegram" says that the German cables were indeed cut very early in WWI -- by the British. The U.S. was, after all, neutral for the first 3/4 of the war! In fact, this action turned out in the end to lead to the U.S. entering the war. It seems that the Germans sent a telegram to Mexico, saying that in the event of the U.S. entering the war against them, they invited the Mexicans to enter the war on the German side and promised that if they did so then they would get back the territory now in the U.S. that they used to have. Now, because of the cut cables, the Germans were limited in how they could transmit an overseas message like this with security. They chose to route it (illegally) through a neutral country -- the U.S. itself! They thought it was safe because nobody could possible break their code, even if, say, the British had someone in a position to take a copy of it, which they did. But they also *did* know how to break the code, and cheerfully revealed the contents of the telegram, and the rest is history. (I'm working from memory, but I did read the book pretty recently.) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:10 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Foxhole Payphones? What Next? Much is being said about "high technology" changing the way war is conducted. We're all hearing things about how generals and admirals have new tools for their conduct. But how about the individual soldier or sailor? The following press release from AT&T indicates the latest at the front ... almost a payphone in the foxhole: ************ PRESS ADVISORY: AT&T calling volumes MORRISTOWN, N.J., Jan. 18, 1991 -- Despite current hostilities in the Middle East, United States military personnel continue to use AT&T's USADirect(R) Service to call home at a rate of approximately 13,000 calls a day. Service people are making the same number of calls today as they were prior to the start of the conflict on Wednesday evening. Nearly 1,000 special USADirect phones are installed close to front-line troops in Saudi Arabia. Troops can use this service to call the United States or Germany to talk with their family and friends. AT&T installed these phones in November specifically for the use of Operation Desert Storm troops. AT&T will continue to offer USADirect Service throughout the conflict. # # # USADirect Service is a registered trademark of AT&T. ************ ...Wonder how Bill Mauldin's famous "Willie and Joe" of WWII would react to a direct USA payphone out there in Belgium or New Guinea? [Moderator's Note: Well, this war is high-tech in all respects, isn't it? I wonder how Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower would react? I bet they'd love every minute of it! Not the war per se, but the tremendous leaps in technology which have made war so much different than it was nearly a half-century ago. This is first war in history covered live on television from start to finish. In Eisenhower's era, one only saw what was presented in the theatre news reels. And yet some things never change: at a forum Sunday in the Chicago Temple auditorium Mayor Daley spoke of the sacrifices 'we may be called upon to make in the weeks and months to come' and the importance of supporting the troops. In addition to the Star Spangled Banner (*four* stanzas, mind you! -- I don't think anyone would remember the second and third stanzas if the words had not been printed in the program), the program closed with everyone singing "Eternal Father Strong To Save". It could have been 1941 as easily as 1991 except for the references to CNN and a short video which was included. :) PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:13 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: "AT&T" Building in Baghdad We had a post on here Sunday about how wire services had reported that the "AT&T Building in Baghdad" had been bombed. According to the following from AT&T's "Newsbriefs" for 21 January, it seems the source this error was a military officer on the spot: ******* ERROR -- The U.S. government and AT&T have been known to have some pretty heated wars, but nothing like this. Air Force Col. Alton Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. Not so, says the telecommunications giant. "We don't even have a building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said. {Dallas Times- Herald}, D1, 1/20. ******* So, it seems even ranking military officers are confused with just how far AT&T's influence goes. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #54 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05754; 22 Jan 91 7:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17085; 22 Jan 91 5:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05286; 22 Jan 91 4:14 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 3:13:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #55 BCC: Message-ID: <9101220313.ab30020@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 03:13:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Bill Nickless] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Charlie Lear] Re: Concerted Action [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Data Interruption by Operator [Mark Brader] Re: Japanese Payphones [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Multi-Location WATS [Mark Van Buskirk] Re: Line Information Data Base [Ronald T. Crocker] Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [Chris Johnson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milton D Miller Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 18:00:47 GMT In article <16236@accuvax.nwu.edu> drz@po.cwru.edu (David R. Zinkin) writes: >My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the >AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the >beginning of February. The alleged benefits of the service are: > -- A private access code for each student (usable from any > telephone on campus) > -- Lower rates > -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great > benefit" of the service) >Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask >fellow netters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this >service? Has anyone used it extensively? I'd like to be prepared for >when it's activated. Well, we have it here at Purdue, and I am generally pleased with the service (it is better than what we had with GTE, who had assigned all the pins in sequence ... care to guess how much fraud was around?) I personally don't make that many calls ... so my typical phone bill is somewhere around $.50 to 1.50 (I call home on a 800 number). Probably the biggest pain is sending in those little checks! They have a 800 number where you can call and get your balance anytime, and you can send in money before the bill is due to extend your $150.00. To check, all you need is your ten digit account number and nine digit Personal Security Code (PSC, aka pin). Also, you can get the rates from the computer, too (I haven't tried this, though). I think the discount is supposed to be 10%, but I haven't looked in a while. As far as dialing, we can call from any Residence hall phone, but the general campus phones are on a different switch and prefix, and can not be dialed from. 800 numbers do not require a card number, other long distance is 1 + A/C (if not ours) + seven digits, wait, then nine digit pin. This year, for other types of toll calls we dial 2+; before we had to ask the campus operator for a outside operator. Milton [Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the same is true of the ACUS service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:41:08 CST From: Bill Nickless Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Andrews University of Berrien Springs, Michigan, has provided long distance service through various campus-sponsored programs such as AT&T ACUS (I think that's the one they're using now.) David R. Zinkin asked if there were any "gotchas" with the service his school was moving towards. The biggest complaint I have with the implementation of AT&T ACUS at Andrews is that for most residence (dorm, apartment) phones it is impossible to use most long distance calling cards directly -- not even AT&T's "Universal Card" works. I have ended up with Sprint and MCI cards that are accessed by 1-800 numbers. They work and avoid the ACUS system. Unfortunately I know of no way to reach an AT&T operator or have an AT&T operator reach me by calling a 1-800 number. A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to AT&T" responses, please. Bill Nickless nickless@andrews.edu or nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (708) 972-7390 or (616) 927-0982 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 21 Jan 91 13:13:37 NZD (Mon) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article <16162@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dan Herrick writes: >A totally deregulated telecommunications environment would allow you >to call one of the other phone companies and tell them you don't like >the service from your current company, "please switch my phones to >your company". Then we would find out what communications costs. Har! Sorry, my fault for not pointing it out. New Zealand has ONE telco. Telecom New Zealand Ltd. You like it or you go without. Otherwise I'd have given them the bird as soon as this "business" and "fraud" thing blew up. >Seven lines is approaching the fringe at which you should explore the >cost of T1 service. If you can buy the wire service from someone >other than the phone company, get surplus T1 hardware, and only buy >phone numbers from the local company (maybe even taking the T1 to the >long distance company's Point of Presence) you could end up with lower >communications cost and spread it around among more suppliers. Telecom NZ has been fighting a battle with the Commerce Commission for the last two years concerning their exorbitant T1 pricing. VAN service providers cannot lease T1 lines cheaply enough to provide lines that are competitive with either tolls or Telecom-leased voice lines. Every day that the situation drags on helps Telecom as it keeps any competition in check while Telecom firms its grip on the market. Note that the Commerce Commission is investigating restrictive business practices, not the actual tariff. We have had a firm set up called the Alternative Telecommunications Company but they are at this stage interested only in big-business leased- line operation between major cities. For this decade at least, the cost of providing dialtone to anyone out in the 'burbs will ensure Telecom retains a monopoly on the domestic market. That doesn't stop Telecom from hiking rentals and so forth to "allow us to retain a standard of service that enables us to compete effectively". Compete with who? Themselves. >(T1 is enough digital bandwidth for 24 voice lines on two twisted >pairs. The breakeven point for installing it depends on how long >those twisted pairs have to be.) In my case, around nine miles to the nearest Telecom T1 junction. I have access to a four-line PAD, so will probably get one 9600bps X25 line into cavebbs to give me four 2400bps dialups for out-of-town users. Telecom's X25 charging stinks too, but that's a different story... Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 20:36:14 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Concerted Action Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand We already know what happens when everyone takes their phone off-hook at about the same time: you have to wait, and wait for a long time, to have any chance of getting dial tone. A truck hit a major power distribution cable a few years ago. Everyone lost power. Everyone wanted to call the power company. No one could, of course. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:22:00 -0500 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Data Interruption by Operator Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have > used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line. ... > I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's > sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data > call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line, > they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now > clear, ring through. This is exactly what I would *hope* would happen if someone did an emergency break when I was on a data line. Some time ago I asked in this forum what actually would happen, and nobody answered. > (And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a > real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I > just want to stop it). What's the problem with identifying who's doing it? When the phone rings, answer it and find out who it is! (If there's no phone on the modem line, it should be easy enough to jack one in before it stops ringing.) My phone company is Bell Canada, which operates in Ontario and Quebec and part of the Northwest Territories. I received something from them recently, probably a phone bill insert. It quoted new fees for having the operator verify a busy line, and for having the operator break into the call. I think the fees were $1 for the verification and 1.50 to break in with or without verification. I was surprised to see that the notice did *not* say that breaking in was only permitted in an emergency; and indeed, introducing a fee tends to show that they feel otherwise. Perhaps the people at Bell decided that since everybody knows there is no way for the operator to really verify that it *is* an emergency call, there was no point in persisting with that requirement. In Bell Canada territory, then, a person could ask the operator to verify the line and in the way find it whether it was a data or voice call -- if the operator would reveal that much -- before deciding whether their business was urgent enough to break in. Not that I would approve of that. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for Japanese payphones. At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their own country. ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 13:21:25 CST 1991 Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Organization: AT&T Dear Mr. Townson: Regarding multi-location WATS discounts Mr. Levine is correct; peculiarities in the tariff allow aggregators to operate. AT&T doesn't benefit directly from aggregator operations. Under current tariff AT&T cannot stop aggregators from operating. If the customer fails to pay their bill the aggregator becomes responsible for payment. Also, aggregators are selling services from other carriers such as MCI, Sprint, ect. I hope this answers your questions on multi-location WATS. P.S.: I'm very sorry to hear of the poor service you encountered while trying to call Israel. As a customer representative I try to treat every customer as I would like to be treated if I was calling. However, with 300,000 employees inevitably you will reach one that doesn't care about the people we are here to serve. I don't agree with many of the policies set by the company but as an employee I must follow them. (Being on the frontline we take the heat.) Finally,as an AT&T employee I feel terrible when I here about such treatment. I certainly hope someone in this large corporation can solve these problems to your satisfaction. Sincerely, Mark Van Buskirk AT&T Rolling Meadows Il 800-544-1697 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your kind letter. You are an excellent example of a company -- any large company, really -- being as good as its best employees and as bad as its worst ones. Your attitude is to be commended. I wish more felt the same as yourself. But as another reader / AT&T employee pointed out to me in a private letter, employee morale has become very poor in many divisions of your company. Long time faithful employees are beginning to discover that nothing counts for anything these days, in the year -- what is it now? -- 6 PD. The old lady in the rocking chair smiling as she relates how AT&T has kept her housed, fed and clothed for many years as a result of her stock holdings (AT&T commercial, circa 1935) is no more. She went to telephone-heaven along with Ma several years ago. The idea that when you went to work for Ma you stayed for the rest of your working career is now very quaint. In 1939, a major fire in the Chicago Union Stockyards caused the evacuation of several city blocks in the vicinity of 43rd and Exchange Avenues ... except at the old YARds telephone exchange (now-a-days 312-927) where the operators sat at thier boards taking calls from frightened subscribers and relaying instructions from the fire department. Times change. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Ronald T. Crocker" Subject: Re: Line Information Data Base Date: 21 Jan 91 13:34:53 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL This information, though not on the tip of my tongue, is available from Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) in Bellcore Technical Report TR-402 and Technical Advisory TA-460. I can't remember which describes the SCP (Service Control Point) and SSP (Service Switching Point [== switch]), but you should be able to get both from Bellcore. Ron Crocker Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group (708) 632-4752 [FAX: (708) 632-4430] ...!uunet!motcid!crocker ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 19:51:54 GMT In article <16174@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu writes: >> 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. >In the Omaha area, they changed the "958 code" to include an additional >four digits, and that has changed a couple of time in the year or so >since they initiated the seven digit line I.D. code. >I'm not sure of the purpose behind this "improvement", but I am >certainly grateful now for "butt sets" with memory dialers! Why should the number change all the time and frequently? It's a great help when it's really needed to track down how an office is wired, for example. At any rate, the number here in the Twin Cities is 511, and has been for the past 10 years for all U.S. West phones I've ever tried. That seems like a sensible service to me, and it's saved me many an hour trying to figure out where some extension is or was, or what number is in the cubicle I just moved into. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 [Moderator's Note: The thinking seems to be that people who wish to commit fraud using your telephone line will find it easier to do so if they can go to some area where the wires are available, for example in the basement of an apartment building, and use the code to detirmine the number of the pair they have illegally grabbed. In one way it makes sense, but I really don't approve of punishing everyone because of the actions of a few. Anyway, you can always find out the number of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you back at 'this number'. Without thinking about it, she will tell the hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask for Mr. Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even if you don't tell her quite how she assisted. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #55 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25203; 23 Jan 91 0:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25804; 22 Jan 91 22:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16018; 22 Jan 91 21:45 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #56 BCC: Message-ID: <9101222057.ab30675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Randy Borow] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [John Higdon] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller] Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Jack Dominey What I Like Ahout Telecom*USA [TELECOM Moderator answers Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Date: 21 Jan 91 15:44:03 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL PAT commented on the fact that he was thinking of changing from AT&T because of the international call blocking ... others metioned what would happen if AT&T blocked calling card calls to certain US areas. In a way TELECOM*USA did this to some BBS (They Blocked 1+ calls) ... Does anyone know if Telecom*USA is still doing this? [Moderator's Note: Maybe if Bruce Wilson is reading this, he can give us the latest update in a short summary message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 21-JAN-1991 15:07:08.29 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Thanks to everyone who responded to my post! I decided to write to Mr. Allen and let him know how I feel about AT&T's blocking of certain international calls from papyhones (non-coin calls, that is). Here is a copy of the letter which I sent: TO: reallen@attmail.com,dreuben@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU DATE: 21-JAN-1991 14:25:45.19 FROM: Douglas Scott Reuben SUBJECT: AT&T blocking of Int. Calls TO: reallen@attmail.com,dreuben@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU,usereafj@rpitsmts Dear Mr. Allen, Recently, I had a most unpleasant experience while using AT&T Long Distance Service. A friend of mine was rather anxious to call Israel, and was unable to get through from a payphone. She attends college in New Jersey, and continued to have difficulty after repeated attempts to get through. I tried to place the call myself, and was told by the operator that "[T]here is no agreement between the state of New Jersey and Israel for non-coin calls from payphones." She also asked if I would like to speak to her supervisor. I had read about this before in various forums, but never thought that it would affect me. Well, it has. As an AT&T customer who has NEVER used an alternate carrier, who encourages friends and associates to use AT&T, who has AT&T 800 service, AT&T residential service on seven lines (total for my houses in Connecticut and New York), business service on eight lines at my office in NY, and who subscribes to various AT&T call discount packages, I am infuriated by both the utter incompetence of your personnel as well as the inability to get through at a time when hearing a distant voice would well have put my friend at ease. How dare you insult me with such an idiotic response from your operator in New Jersey? Even if your operators had only a slight hint of the events which are presently occurring the world, that should suffice to compel them to realize the importance of hearing the voice of a friend or loved one at such a time. Therefore, I request that you explain to me why AT&T has instituted this policy of blocking, and why long-time AT&T customers must be so greatly inconvenienced in this manner. Moreover, I may very well need to call other "blocked" countries in the future, and would like to know how to do so and avoid dealing with untruthful and seemingly ignorant operators. I have been made aware that other long distance services DO provide access to these "blocked" countries. I am reluctant to switch to them, but should AT&T fail to provide me with a satisfactory resolution to this incident, I will be forced to change my business and residence services over to them as I feel that I can not countinue to support AT&T as long as you have such a callous disregard for some of your most loyal customers. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Very truly yours, Douglas Scott Reuben P.S. You may respond to: "dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu","dreuben@ wesleyan.bitnet" or FAX a response to (212) 481-1159. I am usually not around to take voice calls, and a written response would thus be appreciated. ------- Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my breath! :( Thanks again for all the replies, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 11:58:05 CST 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Both John Higdon and our esteemed Moderator understandably have become more than perturbed, shall I say, at AT&T. Apparently, several items of late have bothered these two gentlemen. Pat, I could easily -- as an AT&T employee -- say you're nuts, etc.; or, I can tout the greatness of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. However, allow me to say that I actually agree with you -- albeit to a certain extent. Many times I find myself asking how such a company as large, reputable, and old as AT&T can be so confused and confusing, technical, disorganized, etc. It seems like just when we have found the answer to something, we go ahead and change it, under the guise of "customer satisfaction," but ostensibly to do nothing to cut costs (read jobs). This company unfortunately does not believe in the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Ever since the break-up of the old Bell System (oh, how I yearn for the good ole days), AT&T has cut over 250,000 jobs, and it continues to do so at an unbelievable rate. As a result, morale throughout most of the company has sunk to a terrible low. What motivation is there for employees to truly serve or help a customer when management doesn't give a damn about its employees. After all, if someone's job will be eliminated shortly, there is no reason to go the extra mile for those who have cut your throat. I must, however, explain a few things. I don't want this to appear like a vendetta or angry diatribe against my employer AT&T. I am not ashamed to work for Ma Bell, and I have no regrets about accepting the job to begin with. Unlike some AT&T'ers Pat and John (and even I) have encountered, I try my best to out of the way to help someone. No, it's not the simple "the customer is always right" indoctrination. Instead, I am someone who -- believe it or not -- will make sure the person with whom I am dealing goes away convinced that AT&T at least CARES. Because I am only human, I occasionally fail, but it's not for lack of trying. Usually, it's because of some stupid company policy or the lack of proper personnel to assist me. I do not wish to sound like a disgruntled, bleeding liberal, but I must ask the upper echelon who runs this communications giant: Why continue to decimate your own ranks, and in so doing, leave the customers out in the cold? AT&T must first remember that in reality, the employees are its first customers. We who are on the lower end of the totem pole (and pay scale) are the foot soldiers who possess the common sense to see what is happening. If only the big executives would stop looking at everything through an accountant's kaleidoscope and realize what is truly going on. Only then will we truly be the best there is. We must never forget: a house divided will not stand. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Date: 22 Jan 91 08:54:50 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Bill Nickless writes: > A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way > of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to > AT&T" responses, please. Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number, or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator. AT&T is the easiest carrier on the planet to block because it arrogantly refuses to admit that such an august institution needs to stoop to "alternate access" the way the "other guys" do. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 16:32:27 -0500 From: Milton D Miller Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network In article <16273@accuvax.nwu.edu> The Moderator writes: [Regarding ACUS billing] >[Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for >calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small >balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes >above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the >same is true of the ACUS service. PAT] I know this is *NOT* the case, from personal expierence ... there is a 10% late payment charge, and after 15 days the bill date they they send a second notice, including a threat to turn it over to a colletion agency, and turn off the number ... all for a bill that was 73 cents with late charge (.66 orig, .07 late charge -> 10%)! (I was at home this time to look at the bill). milton [Moderator's Note: Isn't it interesting that two different divisions of the same general area of the company (both handling billing for long distance calls) don't even have a standard practice regarding small balances ... also note: On my 'regular' phone lines I have one each of Reach Out America / Reach Out World. Use either of my lines and the call is handled through the appropriate plan ... all my long distance traffic on both lines is combined on one plan to maximize benefits. But when I asked the cellular billing office in Orlando to combine my two cellular numbers on one long distance bill, or permit them to be included in the Reach Out plan applying to my other two lines, their answer was 'no can do'. So one division can consolidate your charges on one bill (admittedly it is IBT handling it for them) and the other division says they cannot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 22 14:21:47 EST 1991 Subject: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) In Vol 11, #55, Bill Nickless asks: >A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way >of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to >AT&T" responses, please. While I'm not familiar with ACUS (I deal with small businesses), I do know that Mr. Nickless is touching on a sore spot for AT&T. The issue of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too. AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to live with it. To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950 access are integral to their design. AT&T's network was always the default, so the other access methods were never included. I haven't seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now, but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Telemarketing, Tucker, GA. | 800 241-4285 | ATTMail !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:11 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Telecom*USA Patrick, Can you discuss what you like about this service? edg [Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary) blocking calls to BBS lines they don't like has always disturbed me, but generally I find them very responsive and efficient. Of course, MCI just recently took over ... :) let's give MCI a chance! :) I have Telecom*USA as my back up carrier on my two residential lines, so I can use 10835 as needed. 10835 will *not* work unless you have registered with them first. Normally I push everything over AT&T using one-plus, but I feel comfortable having another carrier available. They were perfectly happy to give me 10835 access without slamming my lines or getting aggressive in their pitch. In fact, they gave me no pitch at all to go one-plus with them. The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes: A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number, and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their switch there are numerous helpful prompting messages which you can bypass by punching buttons at any time. A synthesized voice provides this menu: (the # key terminates what is going on and returns to menu) Dial the desired domestic or international long distance number, or -- *1 for the Voice News Network (news, weather, sports, business, etc) updated continually around the clock from CNN. Dozens of sub-categories are available. *2 for conference calling with unlimited parties. A Telecom*USA operator answers and takes all the information then connects the parties. *3 for voicemail maintainence. I have a personal 800 voicemail number which takes my callers direct to voicemail. Callers would dial that 800 number to reach my box, but I would use *3 from within the switch to reach the box to get messages, do maintainence, etc. *4 for Message Store and Forward service. Record a message of any length, and specify 'person' or 'station' delivery. Attempts will begin in fifteen minutes and be made up to eight times in the first hour, then once hourly for the next eight hours. A Telecom*USA operator will announce 'person' calls and get the person on the line. *9 + for my ten-number speed dial directory. *91 through *99 automatically dials the number stored, domestic or international. *90 is used to program the speed dialing and review the directory. This is provided at no additional charge to Telecom*USA card customers. *0 for the Telecom*USA operator who will provide free directory assistance and help in placing calls. In addition to serving as my backup carrier and using the card to access voice mail, voice news, store and forward, etc I have two 800 'hotline' numbers from Telecom*USA. These two numbers terminate on my home phone, but make use of IBT's 'distinctive ringing' service to tip me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s). The personal 800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per month. There is no charge for voicemail, except for 29 cents per call/minute and the same rate for maintainence/minute. The (fourth) 800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA -- is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'. They installed my 800 numbers the same day I ordered them and changed the outdialing on each to my distinctive ringing number within hours of my request. It is rare you wait in a queue to reach their customer service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on callers in voicemail, etc. They seem to have full international service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number, the price is certainly right! I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers, voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all that to AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #56 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26257; 23 Jan 91 1:28 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18769; 22 Jan 91 23:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25804; 22 Jan 91 22:50 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #57 BCC: Message-ID: <9101222158.ab14745@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan [Henry Troup] Hello From Las Vegas [Ed Greenberg] What the 911 Operator Knows [David A. Smallberg] Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Howard Pierpont Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing [Nigel Allen] MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Bill Huttig] The Pac*Bell Plan [John Higdon] Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted [Lewis De Payne] GSM Channel Codec [Jorge Costa] Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Joseph Chan] Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [Hobbit@ftp.com] When PC is the Reason For a Second Line [J. Philip Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 91 10:45:00 EST From: Henry Troup Subject: Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan You may be interested in the following NT News Release: Tokyo, January 14, 1991 -- Northern Telecom announced today that it will supply the first Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) network for a Type II telecommunications service company in Japan, based on eight new DMS-300 SuperNode switches and additional Northern Telecom equipment. The contract is worth more than US $20 million. INTEC, a corporation which offers packet switched network services, has ordered the Northern Telecom DMS-SuperNode switches to support a new nationwide network providing integrated, multi-media services for data, voice and image transmission. The network will offer high value-added services to major corporations around the country. Northern Telecom will provide full support to assist INTEC in deployment of the network to meet INTEC's in-service milestones. INTEC is a pioneer in new Value Added Network (VAN) services for Japanese Type II carriers. Since 1989, the company has been Northern Telecom's distributor of the Meridian PBX range of products in Japan. This experience with Northern Telecom products, together with the development of the DMS-SuperNode backbone network, will allow INTEC to offer complete turn-key network integration services for its corporate ISDN customers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:10 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Hello From Las Vegas Well, not really, I'm back now :-) I spent a long weekend in Las Vegas for CES a week or so back, and thought I'd comment on the phone service, both coin and cellular that I encountered. Hotel Service: Ballys is charging $.50 for local, 800 and credit card calls. 9+10288+0+ works fine, although 9+0+ goes by a more "creative and profitable" method. Centel coin service: Centel is the local operating company, and they have very odd coin phones. I think they're Northern Telecom. They have a single slot and a tough plastic coating over the metal jacket of the phone. They take an abysmally long time to put up a calling card or local call, and to recover for the next one. They charge a quarter. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't remember whether I had to dial 10288 to get AT&T. It all runs together :-) COCOT service: Bally's, Caesar's and The Mirage all are completely COCOTted. The COCOT's look like Bell coin phones, rather than Centel ones, so they're easy to spot. All I tried do not permit 10xxx dialing, and route long distance calls via the "creative and profitable" method. You can't even get the Centel operator. None of them muted the TT pad after a local call was connected, allowing me to use the roamer port of the local Cellular carrier, which brings me to .... Cellular Service: I had a Mitsubishi transportable phone with me when I went to Vegas. My brother brought this, along with his Motorola portable, in order for us to keep in touch at the show. On arrival, his phone worked, including roaming, but my phone told me that "This phone is not authorized for use in Las Vegas." Centel (the B cellular carrier) told me that the phone did not appear on the authorized list. My assumption is that they couldn't authorize it through the database. A call to Pac*Tel Cellular in Sacramento on Thursday at 5:30 PM resulted in working service (and follow-me roaming) by Friday at 8:00 AM. Cellular coverage and capacity seemed excellent. The set I had has a signal strength meter, and strength rarely dropped below half scale (three out of six segments.) Full scale readings were obtained out of doors, even in "building canyons" and on upper floors, as would be expected. I drove out to the Hoover Dam, and lost cellular service about the time I passed Boulder City. One interesting point. It was not possible to dial from one roaming cellular phone to another. The result was a reorder (fast busy.) Calls were easily placed through the roamer port, so this was not a problem. Note that the roamer port returns supervision on answer, whether you complete (or even dial) a call or not. Centel does not provide *611 service after hours, so we never got a satisfactory answer to our question of why we couldn't call each other direct. CES was interesting, and there were some VERY SMALL handheld phones available. OKI and Panasonic come to mind. ed_greenberg@hq.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:32:51 PST From: David A Smallberg Subject: What the 911 Operator Knows Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A. area, as it turns out). He called from a private home, and was still there when the police arrived! I wonder what percentage of the population does not know how much the 911 operator knows. For that matter, in areas where Caller ID has been available for a while, have there been any surveys of how many people ignored all the advertising and are still unaware that the number they're calling from is available to the callee? How long will it take for this knowledge to spread to, say, 95% of the people? I suppose this is similar to the time when automatic exchanges started appearing. How long did it take for 95% of the population in those areas to realize that you could call someone without their being able to readily check where you're calling from, since there was no operator to ask? David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das [Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many years ago, replacing POLice 5 1313 and FIRe 7 1313 as the emergency numbers, considerable publicity was given to the fact that the dispatchers would know who you were and where you were calling from. A suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the publicity went on for so long you'd have thought *everyone* would know ... yet on opening day a mousy little man turned in a phalse alarm and when the police knocked on his door he was surprised, to say the least. In court, he wrung his hands and said he didn't know those calls could be 'traced' ... "well you do now," bellowed the judge as he handed him a $500 fine. 911 here has cut phalse fire and police calls down to almost nothing. Prior to 911 firemen were getting a couple dozen 'mistaken citizen trying to help' (their euphemism) calls daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 12:33:22 PST From: HOWARD PIERPONT Subject: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request As part of a project at work I have been asked to configure a van with the following hardware: 2 way radio [typical 2 way radio system] Scanner Cell Phone Computer System #1 Cell Phone Computer System #2 Cell Phone Voice System #1 Cell Phone Voice System #2 Cell Phone FAX System #1 Cell Phone Spare [FAX, Voice,Computer] System OK that means eight antennas on the roof of a van [could be full size or mini]. What should the placement be for the cell antennas? I presume that I need six. I can mount anything anywhere on this vehicle, so optimize. Also, I'm looking for either a laptop with cellular modem or a good source cellular modem. Thanks, Howard Pierpont Digital Equipment Corp. 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749 508.568.6165 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 14:36 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada A while ago, someone asked whether there was a device that could switch incoming calls (perhaps to a fax machine or voice) based on the distinctive ringing service offered by many telephone companies. I have received some sales literature from a Canadian company that offers Ring ReaderTM, which does exactly that. I have not seen the device in use, and I know nothing about the company beyond the sales literature. For more information about Ring Reader, contact: TEO Technologies Inc. 30 West Beaver Creek Road, Unit 2 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3K1 Canada Telephone (416) 882-6082 FAX (416) 882-5982 The literature says it is FCC registered and DOC (Canada's Department of Communications) certified. Dimensions are given as 89 mm x 152 mm x 32 mm, and power as 12 volt DC at 300 mA. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues Date: 21 Jan 91 15:47:50 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at Telecom*USA rates. That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks and one day since I first called after receiving the invoice ... no credit yet. I still have not recive the invoice date 1/1/91. They will have to rerate it and the bill for Jan 91 (2/1/91). Bill [Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: The Pac*Bell Plan Date: 22 Jan 91 01:35:02 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Last week mention was made of GTE raising its rates to offset the loss of revenue from touch tone charges that would no longer be leavied. I responded with a condemnation of the whole rotten deal with the PUC, but did not answer a question posed in the original article: how will Pac*Bell handle it. My general answer was that it would be a "screw the public" arrangement. Now that I am in my warm, fuzzy environment again I have dug up the details: First, Pac*Bell has cleverly "included" touch tone with a number of its classes of service, e.g. COCOT, Commstar, and Centrex. None of these services will experience any rate reduction as a result of the change. This means that the rate reduction exposure to Pac*Bell is considerably minimized. To compensate for the remaining customers that will have the charge removed, Pac*Bell will increase everyone's bill in a sneaky slight-of-hand maneuver. For many years there has been an item on Pac*Bell bills called the "Rate Surcharge". The amount in this column ranges anywhere from a few cents to many dollars, positive or negative. It was a scheme used by Pac*Bell to change rates without changing rates. The monthly charge on customers' bills is almost a constant figure. When Pac*Bell is granted small rate increases, the "rate surcharge" is adjusted upward. If Pac*Bell is ordered to reduce rates it is adjusted downward. At the moment, the rate surcharge is a negative number meaning it is a credit every month. Bill insert: "The California Public Utilities Commission has allowed Pacific Bell to reduce this monthly credit by 4.96 percentage points to offset the revenues lost by eliminating the monthly 'Touch-Tone' charge." So there you have it. After convincing the PUC to give Pac*Bell rubber stamp "streamlined" regulations by, among other things, giving up touch tone charges and expanding the Zone 1 calling, it turns out that Pac*Bell gave us nothing at all except a shell game. Instead of charging Touch Tone customers more than rotary customers, it will just charge everyone more. And the people who really get the shaft are the Centrex and Commstar customers (COCOT slime doesn't count) who were conned with the line that "the service includes Touch Tone". Well, not anymore, sucker! It's extra and NOT optional. Does anyone still wonder why I foam at the mouth over the antics of Pac*Bell? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Lewis De Payne Subject: Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted Date: 22 Jan 91 06:46:39 GMT Organization: Albedo Communications I would like to know if anyone has an older edition of the Curtis NAMFAX book, either loose-leaf or mini-binder, for sale. The new book goes for $159, the mini-binder for $125. Your used book is still useful to us. Since this newsgroup is not being received on my node, please send all replies directly to me. Thank you. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 01:51 GMT From: COSTAJ@ul.ie Subject: GSM Channel Codec I'm implementing a GSM channel codec for the Pan-European Mobile Radio system. Any information concerning this subject would be very welcome. I'm specially looking for data to test my IC implementation. Jorge Costa : costaj@ul.ie ------------------------------ From: Joseph Chan Subject: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Date: 22 Jan 91 19:38:03 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally standardized. My specific question is that what is the phone line voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia). If I bring a phone/fax (based on CNG tone, I assume that there is no distinctive-ring service provided by any Asia country) to Indonesia or Hong Kong, will it work? (Of cause I would need a 220v power supply for this device) Thank you for any information. Please reply by e-mail to joseph@bofur.bioeng.washington.edu. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:50:37 -0500 From: *Hobbit* Subject: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site? Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from your local Fujitsu reps? I'm getting really sick of diddling this lame-o piece of junk we have over here. Comments and past experience welcome. Recommendations of an AT&T system 75 won't surprise me. Please reply directly; I don't catch up on telecom that often. _H* ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: When PC is the Reason For a Second Line Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 19:59:10 CST Like many other readers of this Digest, I always like to read the front matter in the phone book - both locally and when traveling. The new St. Louis White pages just arrived today and one of the things that I found interesting was where SWBT lists the "Optional Services" they suggest that you might want additional lines - "A separate telephone line with a different number for your teenager or personal computer." Clearly they understand that there is additional revenue to be achieved from folks like many of the readers here. Note also, that they don't say anything about charging you business rates if you get too many additional 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #57 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28646; 23 Jan 91 3:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01724; 23 Jan 91 2:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19375; 23 Jan 91 0:56 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:13:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #58 BCC: Message-ID: <9101230013.ac05387@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 00:13:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Ken Abrams] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Jon Sreekanth] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Dave Levenson] Re: Japanese Payphones [Ted Marshall] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bob Vaughan] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Scott R. Myers] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Donald E. Kimberlin] Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck] Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?) [Barry Margolin] Re: More AT&T / MCI Advertising [Charles Bryant] Assignment of 800-233 [Randy Borow] Service Without Paying For It? [J. Philip Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone I've had that problem on my 5XBar as well. All customers get tone, whether they pay or not. I've never known the telco to go after people or turn off tone on this exchange even if they don't pay for it. Anyhow, I normally don't have trouble dialing with Touch Tone, but once in a while, especially after I just hung up on another call, when I try to dial with tone, I can't seem to GENERATE the tones. For example, it seems like at times (maybe 5% all calls), the exchange reverses polarity, and all my old "Bell System" phones won't generate a tone. If, however, I pick up a Panasonic phone (at the same time), the Panasonic has no trouble generating the tone, and the exchange responds by breaking the dial tone. I'm not sure if this was the nature of the problem that was posted. It may have been that the phone COULD generate tones, but that the exchange just didn't respond, which would not be the same thing as the problem that I have described. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 22 Jan 91 19:55:10 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu> SINGER@ibm.com (David Singer) writes: >Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my >phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone. If I >hang up and retry, it will almost always work. This happens on both >my lines, using various instruments. >I called telco (well, GTE); they "tested my lines" (dumping a modem >session in the process) and said they found nothing, but the problem >continues. Can anyone suggest some magic words to whisper in GTE's >ear to point them in the right direction? You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms. It is HIGHLY likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO. They are probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a pattern yet. I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the tones. This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not impossible. It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it! All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety. If it is a digital switch, all bets are off. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 22 Jan 91 09:16:43 In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderater noted: > would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent > years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not .... > only an occassional failure, it is probably because the CO is now and > then sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. Try to explain to the Repair > Bureau that on occassion you 'cannot cut the dial tone' and ask if > they are from time to time sending you a dial tone intended for rotary I'm not looking for 'dangerous hacker information', but are you saying that the dial tone contains some encoded information ? That is, other than the 350 - 440Hz pair, are there some other signals, or frequencies out there in the dial tone? (I ask because my designs use standard assumptions to detect on/off hook, dial tone, ringing, CPC, etc.) Thanks, 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: My phraseology was not the best in that message. I'll let Dave Levenson clarify it in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 23 Jan 91 03:00:27 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SINGER@ibm.com (David Singer) writes: > Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my > phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone. If I > hang up and retry, it will almost always work. This happens on both > my lines, using various instruments. Perhaps your central office has one or two bad touch-tone receivers. When I lived in Summit, NJ, we had an old 5-crossbar central office until about 1980 or so (201-273, but now it's 908-273). We had touchtone service, bought and paid for, on both lines, but on about one call in 30 or so we'd get a dial tone which did not react to tone dialing. When I reported this to 611 repair service, they told me it was my instrument. When I mentioned it to a NJ Bell craftsperson familiar with the Summit CO, he remarked that there were 29 originating registers in the office ... and that usually one or more were out for maintenance. He thought that perhaps the class-of-service register within one of those registers had a dirty relay contact or something, which caused it to fail to latch up the fact that we had touchtone service. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 17:38:31 PST From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones I visited Japan about a year ago and, like John, was generally impressed with the Japanese payphones. One more interesting thing about about the green phones is that when using coins, they are collected from the holding chamber as required and excess coins are returned at the end of the call. It does not give change as such: if you put in a 100 yen coin and spend 30 yen, you get nothing back but if you had put in ten 10 yen coins, you would the seven unused coins back. If you put in a mixture of 10 and 100 yen coins in, the smaller coins are used first. Thus, on making a long-distance call with coins, the optimum method is to start with a bunch of 10 yen coins, just in case someone answers but the person you want to talk to isn't available. Once you do get that person, you feed in 100 yen coins to keep it going without having to feed gobs and gobs of coins. As you near the end of the call, you switch back to 10 yen coins so you get a much back at the end as possible. The pre-paid cards are clearly easier, but the coins do work well! BTW, US$1.00 = ~ 130 yen, last time I checked. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. ------------------------------ From: Bob Vaughan Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: 22 Jan 91 10:05:51 GMT Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA In article <72208@bu.edu.bu.edu> nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (Bill Nickless) writes: >I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole >in the center of the bit. Security type Torx bits are available from: Time Motion Tools 410 South Douglas St El Segundo, CA 90245 1-800-779-0609 - customer service 1-619-689-7272 - orders 1-213-772-8170 - export department 1-619-578-2608 - fax - 24 hours TELEX 910-250-6581 answer back: TIMEMOT ELSG They have sets of removable bits for multi-bit drivers, power screwdrivers, etc. I did not see individual security type Torx drivers, but they may be added at any time. Bob Vaughan - techie@well.sf.ca.us {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie 1-415-856-8025 - techie@btr.com {fernwood,decwrl,mips,sgi}!btr!techie ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? Date: 22 Jan 91 19:30:26 GMT Organization: Rutgers University On the same note I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with programming information for the Panasonic TP500. Also, why does it seem that this type of information is not intended for the end user? Case in point: I purchased a Novatel hand-held a year ago and the Sears representative knew nothing about programming it. I convinced him to give me the programming instructions and the info that Bell Atlantic provides. I took it home and got it running in fifteen minutes. Why was it necessary for me to convince the representative to give up the programming info? Thanks in advance. Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)352-4162 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07208 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm [Moderator's Note: It was 'necessary to convince him' because over the years the cellular companies and their sales agents have developed an attitude which says the less you know about cellular service the more money there is in it for them. As W. C. Fields once said (admittedly he was talking about the young women he liked to date), "the dumber they are, the better I like them." :) If you had to take the phone to an agent everytime you wanted to make some change in the configuration ... well, you get my point, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:15 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Perhaps the following from AT&T's Newsbriefs for 21 January indicates some reason why carriers act as they do. Looks as though they do have a fraud problem on their hands..albeit one they handle roughly, as postings here indicate: ****************** SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000 calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill. AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling setups in various parts of the country since early 1990. ... AP, 1/20. [Moderator's Note: The Tribune talked about this guy the other day. Because of restrictions on phone calls between countries 'over there', this chap was operating a call forwarding service in his apartment here. Calls would come from various places in the Middle East; he would flash and set up a three-way call back to Israel (or wherever) for the calling party since the good ole USA allows calls everywhere. The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the tune of $45,000. When police broke into his apartment to arrest him, he was sitting there handling two conference calls at once on two lines, each with three-way calling. I know AT&T has some horrendous fraud problems, but this is an outragous case which did not even involve Calling Cards. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14:19 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less phones Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Thanks to all who sent information. One of the companies, Telephone Outlet, had a supply of "courtesy" phones in four colors. The asking price ($20 apiece) was pretty good for sturdy refurbished Western Electrics. Try getting anything decent for $20 at the local Ripemoff Appliances. Incidentally, Telephone Outlet got my business because of their 1-800 number (782-9701) and the fact I talked to a person and not an answering machine. Paul Schleck Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?) Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 18:25:54 GMT In article <16246@accuvax.nwu.edu> IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: > I had no idea that national defense could be used as a justification > to bug someone's phone outside of the scope of simple law enforcement. I thought it was well known that the CIA routinely monitors calls to certain foreign nations, for purposes of national defense. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: Charles Bryant Subject: Re: More on AT&T / MCI Advertising Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 13:46:22 GMT In article <16078@accuvax.nwu.edu> judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Peripheral Visionary 14-Jan-1991 1326) writes: >To the music of pomp and circumstance they point out that AT&T was >"awarded" a golden turkey prize by the {San Francisco Examiner} for >one of the ten worst advertising campaigns of 1990. >Then they point out that "this message was brought to you by MCI, >which is pleased to be able to give wider publicity to this award". But who buys advertising from AT&T? I thought they were a phone company :-) Charles Bryant ch@dce.ie ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 09:40:37 CST 1991 Subject: Assignment of 800-233 In response to Mr. Kravitz's query on which carrier has the 800 prefix 233: this belongs to AT&T. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Service Without Paying For It? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 7:21:58 CST Our esteemed Moderator recently suggested: > Anyway, you can always find out the number > of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John > Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course > he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you > back at 'this number'. Without thinking about it, she will tell the > hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask > for Mr. Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have > your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even > if you don't tell her quite how she assisted. :) PAT] Is it now time to start another round of debate about whether this type of action is legal/ethical or not? You are obtaining a service without paying for it by misrepresenting your actions. Or is it justified in this case because the phone company (local) should provide number identification but since they will not you will trick a long distance company into providing it for you? 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 [Moderator's Note: No, it is not legal, for the reason you mentioned and another one: What business have you being on the phone line not assigned to you in the first place? If you are not paying for the line and have not been given permission to use it then you should not be on it. So there you are in possession of stolen property, in the act of committing a petty fraud against telco for the purpose of finding out information which is none of your business anyway. Sounds like a winner to me! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #58 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22295; 23 Jan 91 23:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28374; 23 Jan 91 21:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26355; 23 Jan 91 20:13 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:52:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #59 BCC: Message-ID: <9101231952.ab01531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:51:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Steve L. Rhoades] Israel Connectivity Status [Hank Nussbacher] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Daniel Lance Herrick] Re: CNN's Phone Link in Baghdad [Steve Thornton] Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification? [wegeng@arisia.xerox.com] Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis [Andrew Morley] CNN Reception [Paolo Bellutta] Qatar War Panic: Phone System Goes Down [Nagi Nagendra] USA - Israel Phone Calling [Hank Nussbacher] NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [D. Eastick] Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount [Daniel Lance Herrick] Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Syd Weinstein] Request For List of UK STD Codes [Gerald Pearse] Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed [Doug Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 06:30:59 GMT Has anyone else noticed the high-pitched series of tones on some of the phoned in news reports from the Middle East? These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible. There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about once every sixty seconds. It's a series of about four different tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each. Thoughts, anyone? Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 12:45:17 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Israel Connectivity Status TELECOM Moderator asked, >On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >with news? We have two 9.6kb lines. One goes to Nysernet in the USA and is an IP link (which was supposed to be upgraded to 64kb on Jan 15th but our PTT is busy with other things these days). The other link is an RSCS (Bitnet) link to France. The Israeli termination spot for these two links is in separate spots in the country, specifically for such emergencies. One missile missed one of our Cisco routers by about 500 meters. Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS - ahead of schedule. This links into TAT8. The fiber optic cable is a joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus, Italy as well as others. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: Thanks for writing, and do take care of yourself. Please stay in touch with us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 22 Jan 91 13:14:18 EST In article <16221@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the > other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these [discussion of miniaturization possibilities] > If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to > take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter > present. Yes, it is possible to smuggle information out. Let the record acknowledge that that is not the way CNN did it in Baghdad. They were persistent in asking for permission (I think he said "three calls per day"), they were scrupulous in their treatment of the story - not bashing their host. Then, when the big story broke, they avoided attracting attention (this is funny, in the light of the whole context, but it took climbing five flights of stairs and searching the wing to find them and they avoided it a few times). Eventually they sounded too much like forward bomb spotters and the government sent someone to silence them. The messenger said "Stop, now", apologetically, and the senior CNN official on the scene said "Yes, SIR". Some of what CNN did that night was accomplished because they were overlooked during the excitement, but it was possible because of hard negotiations in advance and scrupulous care to report the story, not broadcast editorials. I'm reminded of Jesus' parable of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. Dan Herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:56:29 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: CNN's Phone link in Baghdad I'm confused by the {Chicago Tribune} article -- in one place it is stated that the four-wire link runs all the way from Baghdad to Amman, but, further on, the article says the link is to the local phone office in Baghdad, with the link to Amman being microwave, apparently Iraqi-owned equipment. Which is (was) it? steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:17:13 PST From: wegeng@arisia.xerox.com Subject: Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification? I'm just a little bit confused about how the news media is getting their reports out of Iraq (I'm not talking about the CNN four-wire, but the media in general). I've heard a couple news reports that mentioned satellite telephones in the lobby of the hotel (one BBC report mentioned that every time a bombing raid started the satellite telephone went out - perhaps the electronic countermeasures may be affecting them). Are these the same devices that have been mentioned previously here in TELECOM, such as MARISAT phones? How much do these devices cost? Reply via e-mail or the TELECOM Digest, as you see fit. BTW, I also heard a network commentator in Saudi Arabia mention that their satellite uplink went out whenever an AWACS plane took off or landed. Sounds like someone is generating some nasty interference (perhaps intentionally). Don wegeng@arisia.xerox.com ------------------------------ From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Subject: Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis Date: 21 Jan 91 13:55:40 GMT In <16146@accuvax.nwu.edu> ehopper@attmail.com writes: >*** AT&T and other companies have received numerous bomb threats >during the past few days. AT&T received several such threats Can anyone tell me whay anyone would wish to bomb telecommunications sites? Is it AT&T in particular or all telecom companies? Andrew Morley, abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs [Moderator's Note: The same people who propose these 'solutions' are the same ones who propose terrorizing the post office. For the past week, the post office I use has had *no* wastebaskets; *no* mail receptacles inside the building; *no* convenience lockers where you insert a few coins to rent a little locked compartment for a few hours. All but one entrance is locked, at a location of the building which is inconvenient to me. Many of the banks have their night deposit slots blocked off. All the federal building toilet facilities are closed to the public. Something tells me I am going to be tired of this war in more ways than one before it is over ... and just now on the television President Bush said 'everything is right on schedule'. Ha! and double ha! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: CNN Reception Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 9:13:16 MET DST Ed Hopper pointed out that CNN is available almost everywhere, and that it is possible that the CNN transponder is not scrambled in that part of the earth. I live in northern Italy, and a 90cm dish is enough to receive CNN which is on Intelsat VAF11, (27.5 W) 11.155 Ghz Vertical Polarization. There are rumors that CNN is going to have a transponder on the new Astra 1B DBS satellite (19 E). I do have a tvro but a buiding is blocking the view of the Intelsat satellite. In Iraq, being so eastbound, Saddam my need a larger dish (4-10m) but anyway at least 50-70% of the news programs rely on CNN (which, sometimes, it is just dubbed) for first hand news. On one of the reports from Amman, CNN reporters were on the roof of the hotel and in the background it was clearly visible the fly-away station. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 09:23:05 -0600 From: "Nagendra(\"Nagi\"" Subject: Qatar War Panic: Phone System Shuts Down Hi, For all those who have been writing about all Americans picking up their phones at 12:00 noon, and messing up the phone system, here's an interesting piece of information. My sister lives in Doha, Qatar which is 100 kms south of Bahrain and 400 kms east of Riyadh (see your local newspaper for the map, they should have one these days). Qatar is not directly involved in the hostilities, but has a large airforce base being used by the French. On Saturday morning, 6AM Qatar time, Friday evening here in the US, it seems a French fighter plane flew a li'l too low and the ensuing sonic boom cause everyone to try calling anyone and everyone for information. The Qatar phone system is now partially down. According to her, about 20 percent of the phone system is inoperable as of Monday morning. The normally secretive state owned TV immediately interrupted their regularly scheduled world cup soccer replay, and asked people not to get on the phone in case of an emergency. Side effect: the local TV has more reports on the war now and they can watch CNN live too. Well, picking up the phone did achieve something didn't it? I'll post the technical details when they become available. My sister works for the phone company. Cheers, Nagi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 11:12:23 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: USA - Israel Phone Calling During the first hour after the initial missile attack on Israel last week, a record 750,000 phone calls were recorded from the USA to Israel. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: By the way, I tested calling Israel today with my AT&T card and the call went through ... wonder of wonders ... I got blocked due to the heavy calling, but not a word about using my card. They must turn that feature of their security system off and on as desired (or badgered by the public). ------------------------------ From: Doug Eastick Subject: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Mechanical Engineering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:17:41 EST >Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media >Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb >dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. > Not so, says the telecommunications giant. "We don't even have a >building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said. {Dallas Times- >Herald}, D1, 1/20. I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building. I can't remember what the letters stood for, though. I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by this Friday (Jan 25th). The switch should handle as many lines a possible. Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged telecom lines". Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in color. [Moderator's Note: PTT frequently means "Post, Telephone, Telegraph" since in many countries the government agency which operates the post office also manages the telephone system. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount Date: 22 Jan 91 14:28:25 EST In article <16179@accuvax.nwu.edu>, foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu writes: > Below is the article from the Ramona California Chamber of Commerce > newsletter which prompted my previous article. This article was how I > came to know of the service. When I called the Chamber office about [story and quotation of brochure truncated] It is a reasonably ordinary aggregation. The WATS (outgoing) tariffs allow volume discounts going up to 21% the first year and 22% after that. The discounts start at 17.5%. There is an additional discount of 4.5% or 5.something % on top of the base discount. These all have clever AT&T marketing names. I have understood the details three different times while I was looking at Dr. Self's newsletter about the AT&T tariffs. (Never five minutes later.) If you are spending between $2000 or $5000 on the low end and $10,000 or $15,000 per month on long distance, The Watts Association, another aggregator, can reduce that bill by giving you access to their discounts for a membership fee. The Watts Association is at 22% and 5.3% (I think the second one is). The membership fee is intended to be a third to a half of your savings, and is a fixed amount agreed at signup. The limits come because 1) the minimum membership fee is $25 per month and the savings have to be big enough to justify it, 2) at the high end you can get the same discounts direct from AT&T without the membership fee. Why do I know anything about this? I sell it. dan herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 23:48:29 EST Reply-To: syd@dsi.com [to telecom readers, this message is also being forwarded by myself to reallen@attmail.com] Well, tonight I got blitzed. A series of persistent calls from one of those computer outdial machines blitzed our exchange trying all of our inbound numbers in order, including the modem lines. The pitch, save money on AT&T long distance from AT&T by a marketing group which barely stayed over the line of misrepresentation of saying they were AT&T. If I wasn't a comp.dcom.telecom reader, I would have thought they were AT&T. The message did not identify the group, just gave a rather long speil (I listened to it once to see if it ever gave a company name) then asked for name, address, average monthly phone bill and telephone number. It was also persistent, if you didn't listen long enough to get to the prompts for the info (ie the entire speil) it called you back. I was not pleased that our entire bank of lines got hit, needless to say in number order. I am sure that AT&T operators got the bad end of this by people telling them to stop calling. Perhaps AT&T can force the aggregrators to identify themselves as that more clearly. It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the telemarketers look good. At least those you can tell your bank of lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: "G.A.Pearse" Subject: Request for List of UK STD Codes Date: 23 Jan 91 14:25:19 GMT Reply-To: "G.A.Pearse" Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK Has any one got a list of the UK telephone dialing codes together with the town they are for? In the case of the london 071/081 numbers I would like the exchange districts. Regards, Gerald Pearse (gap@stl ...!mcvax!ukc!stl!gap +44-279-29531 x 2507) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:45:57 CST From: Doug Jacobson Subject: Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed I would like information about access methods for pay phones as well as any regulations that may affect the installation of pay phones in several countries. Countries of most interest are Mexico, South America, Greece, Czechoslovakia. Other countries are of interest and any information would be helpful. Other information of interest would be switch gear manufactures and Goverment regulations. Please E-mail any responses to: doug@isuee1.ee.iastate.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #59 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24460; 24 Jan 91 1:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17761; 23 Jan 91 23:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00392; 23 Jan 91 22:22 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:44:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #60 BCC: Message-ID: <9101232144.ab00843@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:43:52 CST Volume 11 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dennis Pratt] New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves [Wm. Randolph Franklin] Voicemail Evaluation Wanted [John A. Pham] Voice Mail Suggestions? [Dean Sirakides] ATC Creates New Billing System [Bill Huttig] RingDirector vs. RingLeader [Charles "Chip" Roberson] Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Thomas Lowe] Videos by Phone [David Leibold] ISDN Links in UK [Olly Morgan] Cellular Phone Roaming Questions [Nancy J. Airey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dennis Pratt Subject: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:10:58 EST Organization: GTE Labs, Inc. In article <16189@accuvax.nwu.edu> Wes.Williams@f39.n382.z1. fidonet.org (Wes Williams) writes: > For those of you unaware, MA has recently passed a State law to bring > this into active state wide use over the next few years, where only > some cities have been previously served by nonenhanced 911. I have found it interesting that there has been little discussion of NYNEX's political success pushing the payment of Enhanced 911 onto Directories Assistance users. Enhanced 911 is an important system; it allows police to identify where the call is coming from and it allows correct routing of the call to the emergency unit most able geographically to respond. Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 users, pay for this system. I haven't heard what happens if the revenues generated by over-charging 411 users is greater than the costs of E-911. My guess is that NYNEX has adequate accounting proceedures to ensure there will be no excess. I further fear this is simply a wedge with which NYNEX can add on additional charges to Directory Assistance (basically rewarding them for keeping their White Pages out-of-date.) If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop people from using the system. I'm not clear why the politicians want to hide the costs of this service. Other alternative payment schemes are possible. Take directly out of taxes. Take up a state-wide collection for this worthwhile charity. Provide "income assistance" for those who use E-911 but who cannot pay the higher price of the enhanced service. But why tax Directory users to transfer the money to E-911 users? What I do not like is the separation of the user and the payment. I guess I do not trust either NYNEX or MA politicians. But given recent history, should I? Dennis Pratt Disclaimer: My company doesn't know anything about this. ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 23 Jan 91 19:58:05 GMT According to the {Albany Times Union} 1-23-90, since Friday it is now the law in New York that COCOTS with AOSs must: - identify the carrier, - provide a free number for reaching him, - allow, and give instructions for, reaching alternative long distance carriers. However they are not required to post rates, possibly because of the length of the rate tables. The penalty for not identifying themselves is $500, and a customer who mistakenly places a call because of a lack of id can sue to $2000. (I'm not sure what this means. Can you sue for $2000, or the cost of your overpriced call, possibly times 3, up to $2000, or what? Where do you sue?) Also, awhile ago NYS got a big judgement against a 900 and 540 ripoff artist advertising a "gold card" if you called his $50 number. I'll post details later. Q: what percentage of the public is even aware of 900 numbers? I'd guess randomly about 25%, even among "educated" professionals. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_A_Pham@uunet.uu.net Subject: Voicemail Evaluation Wanted Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 07:36:10 PST Our company is looking into buying a voicemail system. Does anyone have any recommendation on any particular voicemail system? I have been looking at Centigram Voicememo, and would like to hear comments about Centigram and any other systems. John ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Voice Mail Suggestions? Date: 23 Jan 91 17:47:09 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Perhaps some of you have heard of the latest rage among our educators: voice-mail! The idea is to set up a system where each teacher can record a daily message reviewing homework, class topics, upcoming events, etc. The parent and or child can then call the central number, key in the proper extension and voila! The programs have been getting a lot of positive press from all concerned. Anyway, I would like to help a teacher friend set up such a system for her school or possibly district. I would greatly appreciate some suggestions for systems. The system doesn't need all the neat features of the big voice mail systems -- there will be no messages left for the teachers. It is purely an announcement system for fifty or so accounts. I would like to keep price to a minimum. A PC might be available if PC systems are the way to go. The district in question is not supported by a large tax base (read: low budget, no money for such "extravagance"). For this reason I was toying with the idea of appealing to the local phone company (Illinois Bell) for monetary help. Does anyone think this would get very far? I figure the phone company gets wonderful press in the local papers and school bulletins, and maybe even a mention in the opening announcement ( "You have reached the xxx district voice bulletin board made possible by a grant by the wonderful, concerned people at Illinois Bell." ) I doubt the increase in local calls to the system would be much of a consequence, but it might count for something (every unit counts!). Any comments on hardware or telco philanthropy would be appreciated. (I also wouldn't mind any good contacts at Illinois Bell!) Thanks, Dean Sirakides | Motorola Cellular Group ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... [Moderator's Note: A good place to start would be by renting a few voicemail boxes on a temporary basis to see how well it works out and how well it is received by parents. I would *not* recommend purchasing a voicemail system until you have at least experimented with the concept of teachers making recorded announcements to students. And you are in luck! Right in your area is an operating system you can discuss with its users: The Iroquois Junior High School, 1836 East Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, IL operates the '7th and 8th Grade Homework Hotline' using public voicemail facilities provided by Centel, the local phone company in that suburb. (I think Centel may even serve a few spots in Arlington Heights -- I'm not sure.) The school has a 'front end' box on a DID phone number (708-518-XXXX) which serves like a directory: press 1 for Teacher Smith; press 2 for Teacher Jones, etc. Parents are encouraged to call and listen to what the students are supposed to be doing that night. As far as I know, Illinois Bell is not yet offering voicemail to anyone except their cellular subscribers, but Centel is renting theirs to anyone, Centel and IBT customer alike. Phone Iroquois JHS (708-824-1308) and ask how their system is working out. Renting from a public voicemail service might be the best deal for you. To get details on Centel Voicemail, 708-518-6000 anytime. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC Creates New Billing System Date: 23 Jan 91 18:23:12 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In the January 21 issue of {Communications Week} (page 26) there is an article which states that ATC has contracted with Electronic Data Systems Corp. in Dallas to create a new billing system for their eight state region. They currently have five different systems (due to a bunch of mergers). They also will introduce a new calling card service with voice mail, etc, like the Telecom*USA card. (ATC stands for Advanced Telecommunications Corp.) (This should be interesting since I have had accounts with three of the companies they bought). ------------------------------ From: Charles "Chip" Roberson Subject: RingDirector vs. RingLeader Date: 22 Jan 91 16:06:15 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC I just called Bell Atlantic Business Supplies to find out about their RingLeader product ($54.95). The person on the other end wanted to ask me a few questions beforehand to make sure the product would work for my situation. He said that there had been problems with some applications of the product. After talking to him, I decided it was worth gamble to save $40 and go with their product. I later found out that they are "9 in the hole" and that the RingLeader was backordered until early February. At that point I decided I would wait. Hello Direct has the Lynx Automation RingDirector/2 in the catalog for $99.95, but a previous posting said you can get it for $89.95 directly from Lynx. Both appear to have privacy switches but I'm trying to figure out why is there a $35-45 difference in the two products? Is there some reason why I should pay the extra money for the RingDirector/2 or should I just save my money and wait for the RingLeader? Jack Winslade gave some good info on the RingDirector in a recent posting. Can anybody provide the same for the RingLeader? Are there any other models out there? Hello Direct says they only package in paper -- ``no styrofoam mess or ozone hazard''. Does Lynx do this? Thanks, Chip Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include [Moderator's Note: I always enjoy reading each issue of the Hello Direct catalog; but it seems to me some of their products are a bit overpriced. For example their headsets are good quality, but two or three times more expensive than those at Radio Shack, or even the local AT&T Phone Center for that matter. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:58 EST Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. There is a label on the box that reads exactly as follows: Armiger & Associates, Inc. Fort Worth Texas USA Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9) For use as USOC RJ- 41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is that just a ploy to make money or are they useful? Thanks for any responses. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ tel@hound.ATT.COM 908-949-0428 ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Videos by Phone Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:31:04 EST A recent article from the Reuters news service mentioned a company called Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time, but the ordering of the movie only takes 15 seconds. A receiver would store the movie for playback when the customer wishes. The system could be on the market as early as 1995. ------------------------------ From: O Morgan Subject: ISDN Links in UK Date: 23 Jan 91 17:13:52 GMT Organization: Edinburgh School of Agriculture I have a question about ISDN, sparked of by the recent anouncements of BT providing ISDN links in the UK (albeit a low performance system) and Gandalf having some ISDN equipment approved. Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this system work on any phone line? If the later applies this is pretty amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?) What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances? Olly Morgan @ Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh EH9 2HH, Scotland Tel: (+44 31) 662 4395 E.Mail: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:43:03 EST From: Nancy J Airey Subject: Cellular Phone Roaming Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Well, I thought I had talked my husband out of wanting a car phone -- but he came home last night with one that he got through our son. I am just waiting for him to see the first bill :-) [Moderator: The first bill will be a little higher because he will play with his new toy. After that, it really won't be bad.] Since I have ignored the previous discussions on "roaming" I'd like to ask the readers (and Moderator) of this group a question(s): I believe that the term "roaming" means the ability to continue to use ones car phone as one travels through different areas of cellular companies. Right/wrong? [Moderator: This is correct.] He has been told that he pays 24 cents a minute for a call. Is this good/bad/average? [Moderator: It depends on his overall calling patterns. I've seen lower rates at night and much higher rates during the day. When does he plan to make most calls? Under what conditions?] He has been told that he can go "anywhere" and he will be able to make his calls on the phone. This is not backed up in the documentation. I am assuming they are talking domestic US, as is he. I think. Is this likely? I got the impression that one had to pay for certain roaming privileges, and that one paid based on where one expected to roam. Right/Wrong? [Moderator: He can go anywhere cellular service exists *and* there is an inter-company agreement between cellular carriers -- which means almost anywhere in the USA. He will have to pay the going rate in the place where he happens to be roaming, plus a daily surcharge in many cases.] I've told him that if he does go into neighboring states (we're in IL, he expects to drive in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio) and *if* the thing does work (I assume there are "blind" spots in states?) he will be paying his 24 cents/minute plus some long distance charge if he calls "home." Right/Wrong? [Moderator: Yes, there are blind spots, but they are growing fewer in number. He will pay the rate charged for 'guest users' in the area where he is roaming and the cost of a long distance call back to his home area. But in my estimation, unless one roams a great deal, the 'airtime plus long distance plus guest surcharge' rates he will pay when out of town are more than offset by the very large local service area in northern Illinois where he will pay *nothing* except airtime, at (the rate you quote of) 24 cents per minute.] Information -- and advice appreciated. att!hrcca!jean Jean Airey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #60 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27079; 24 Jan 91 3:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07053; 24 Jan 91 1:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03006; 24 Jan 91 0:29 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #61 BCC: Message-ID: <9101232337.ac25145@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Dell H. Ellison] Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Secure Phones [Nelson Bolyard] Re: CLID Compatibility Question [David O'Heare] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [David Singer] Re: Japanese Payphones [Craig R. Watkins] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Timothy Newsham] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Peter M. Weiss] MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Paul Wilczynski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dell H. Ellison" Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows Date: 23 Jan 91 16:39:41 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <16299@accuvax.nwu.edu>, das@cs.ucla.edu (David A. Smallberg) writes: > Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where > you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando > Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to ... > there when the police arrived! I wonder what percentage of the > population does not know how much the 911 operator knows. > [Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many ... > suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the > privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the ... > daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller > ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful. PAT] Actually, I find it very interesting that most people don't know that there are two flavors of "911" service: 1. 911 (basic) service provides a central location where all emergency calls (dialing `911') are sent where they are answered and the necessary organization is notified (e.g. police dept., fire dept., etc...). The callers phone number and address are NOT known. 2. E911 (Extended 911) service is essentially the same thing, except the operator IS provided information about where the call is coming from. As a side note, in the Chicago suburb where I live, I don't have any 911 service, yet I am charged $0.75 on every phone bill for that service. I guess they have to get enough money before they can install it. (Which should be just about the time that I move away.) To the Moderator: By the way, how wide spread is Caller ID available in the Chicago suburbs? I would be very interested in getting it. I think it would be great! [Moderator's Note: Our 911 service here was the 'E' version almost from the beginning, back in the mid-1970's. A state law here requires all communities to have 911 service but many of the suburbs do not have it because they share phone exchanges in common with other small suburbs and few of them can agree on *which* suburb (on the same exchange) should handle the incoming call. None of them want some other suburb exercising any control over their police, etc. We had a very crude version of '911' for thirty years before calling it such. Under the old system, 'POLice 5-1313' was translated by each CO into some other number and then forwarded to the police, who received the call on (various)-1313; i.e. Wabash 2-1313, Haymarket 1-1313, and a dozen others. A big wall map had minature lights which would flash off and on showing the CO placing the call to give the police a good idea where to start looking for the victim/criminal, etc. As for Caller*ID in northern Illinois: there is no such animal, yet. 'They' say it would be violate the privacy rights of callers. Area 312/708 is about 75% fully CLASS equipped at this point; more COs are coming on line almost daily. Caller*ID is there, but not being offered at present. IBT/GTE/Centel have filed tariffs but expect it to be several months before approval is granted. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 08:09:48 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows In article <16299@accuvax.nwu.edu>, das@cs.ucla.edu (David A. Smallberg) says: >Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where >you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando >Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to >the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A. >area, as it turns out). (deleted for brevity.) Isn't the system you're describing denoted as 'E911'? It is _my_ understanding the we have plain old 911 i.e., no location database in the 814-86x and 814-23x (central PA) exchanges. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Secure Phones Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:30:34 GMT In article <16161@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >[...] how is the key management performed? It can't be that all >the phones use the same key, as compromising that key would render all >the phones useless (and perhaps not even be noticed). >I don't think it can be that the key is negotiated when the call is >setup, as that would be subject to eavesdropping (although that could >be done under a universal key, but that would be subject to compromise >as above). >Does anyone KNOW how this is done? Yes, Whitfield Diffie wrote a wonderful paper entitled "The First Ten Years of Public-Key Cryptography", published in the Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume 76, Number 5, May 1988, pages 560-577, in which he answers questions such as yours about the STU-III and the Racal-Milgo Datacryptor II, in some detail. Dr. Diffie, together with Martin E. Hellman, developed and patented the Diffie-Hellman Public Key distribution system, which was a forerunner of the public key encryption systems that followed. Their algorithm was first published in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Volume IT-22, Number 6, November 1976, pages 644-654. The patent for this algorithm is now held by Public Key Partners, who also hold the RSA patent, among others. The Diffie-Hellman algorithm permits two communicants to exchange one pair of messages, after which both have knowledge of a secret which may be used for a symmetric key or an initialization vector (e.g. for DES). Prior to communicating, both communicants share a common piece of information, but that is not secret, and may be published. Your nearby university library should have these issues available in bound volumes or on microfilm. Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question Date: 23 Jan 91 21:17:44 GMT In article <16200@accuvax.nwu.edu>, the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Since an ultimate goal is to make Caller-ID > available to everyone on all calls throughout the USA I would think > the individual systems throughout the country are compatible. PAT] Well, the scheme used in Canada is explicitly NOT the same as that used in the U.S., in spite of the close coupling of our phone systems. The gadgets supplied by Bell Canada will understand the sceme used by most, though not all, of the U.S. RBOCs. The gadgets supplied by most U.S. RBOCs and third party vendors understand only a subset of the data stream that Bell Canada puts out; usually just enough to get confused. On a similar note: does anybody out there know WHY Bell Canada chooses to send the particular phone number that it does? I would have thought that they'd send the pilot number of a hunt group, for example, rather than the explicit number within the group. Any ideas? Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:46:12 -0800 From: David Singer Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center In article <16311@accuvax.nwu.edu> pallas!kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: >You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms. It is HIGHLY >likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO. They are >probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a >pattern yet. I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the >switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the >tones. This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not >impossible. It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers >but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it! >All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety. If >it is a digital switch, all bets are off. I just called GTE and they confirmed that I'm on a digital CO (GTD-5). (I'm actually impressed -- the Business Office got me that information without asking why I needed to know!) I should have mentioned in my first posting that my equipment always generates tones when I push the buttons (or ask the modem to dial), and that they sound good to my ears. David Singer -- Internet: singer@ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (amusing disclaimer du jour goes here) ------------------------------ From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Date: 23 Jan 91 17:02:43 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16278@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for > Japanese payphones. At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that > returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no > Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their > own country. I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian Cultural Center). I seem to remember a big display with interesting pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't recall the exact content of the pictures). I was certainly interested in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much for simple curiosity. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? I think the idea of a list of "Cellular Codes" for programming your own cell phone (rather than pay the dealer $25 to do this SIMPLE procedure) makes a LOT of sense. Easy reference to this info will encourage people to reprogram their phones in the correct manner, which hopefully will show some of the (cheaper) Cell Co's that their customers object to being continuously "nickled and dimed" for every little "change of service" or by paying excessive roam and "daily roam" charges. I typed up a list of Audiovox CMT-450 (and 400/500 series in general) programming codes a while back. I think I may have even posted it here. If there is any interest in an "archive" of codes, I'll repost it or submit it to the "archives". Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Yes please, it is about time to print your article once again here for those who missed it the first time. Send it in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 22:24:28 hst From: Timothy Newsham Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? It is my interpretation that the cellular industry restricts the dissemination of cellular phone programming information on the basis that such info could be used to commit widespread fraud. A person armed with a scanner (modified to monitor cellular frequencies) or other similar device could easily read the ESN (Electronic Serial Number [of the cellular phone]) and PIN (PIN for that phone, not the real technical acronym for it, I can't recall the actual name) off the air and program this information into their cellular phone. Thus, all further use of the cellular phone will be billed to a random victim who's billing information was read with ease right off the air. The mobil nature of the cellular phone adds to the appeal of this crime to new wave phreakers. It's an almost perfect way for phreakers to do their thing. Sure, anyone who really wanted to commit this fraud would find out sooner or later how to program their phone ... but why make it that much easier for them? There's an article in Phrack magazine Issue 11, File 9 that tells of the potential problem that making programming information public would be. It was written by a few engineers in the cellular industry. It isn't an article written by a hacker. Good reading for the comp.dcom.telecom type, check it out. [Moderator's Note: There were also people who said that when the telco switched from 'permanent' jacks in residences to modular plug-in phones and permitted people to do their own wiring the amount of fraud against telco would increase when people figured out how to steal pairs from their neighbors. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but everyone now moves their phone and wiring around as they see fit without asking telco for permission to do so. There are people around now who hack cellular service by listening on their Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner to the cellular frequencies (take the diode from D-4 and solder it at D-3 to bring in full coverage at 800 megs), then set dip switches on their home-brew cellular transmitter to do what you mention. What is the solution? Should we punish everyone, or conduct seminars on 'ethics and modern technology'? PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 07:58:01 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service In article <16293@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) says: >Bill Nickless writes: >> A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way >> of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to >> AT&T" responses, please. >Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number, >or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator. Now I'm going to show my ignorance - what is the position and company affiliation of the person who answers 1-800-555-1212? Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: The last I heard, 800-555-1212 was maintained and operated by Southwestern Bell. The physical location of 'Toll Free Directory Assistance' was (is?) in southern Illinois in the LATA covering the St. Louis, MO area. The various other 555-1212 services are maintained by the BOC serving the area. Independent telcos then either contract with the BOC to handle their directory calls or else when you call the answering operator passes you to the independent telco if they choose to handle their own directory enquiries. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:13 GMT From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically Our esteemed Moderator comments .... >[Moderator's Note: There are numerous services which include telex >sending and receiving capabilities. Three which come to mind here in >the USA are MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Sprintmail (we used to call it >Telemail). All three are electronic mail services which will assign a >telex number to a mailbox on request, and accept outgoing telexes. Just a small technical correction ... MCI Mail subscribers don't have to request a telex number - they get one automatically. It's 650 + the seven-digit MCI ID. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #61 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28031; 24 Jan 91 4:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31900; 24 Jan 91 2:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07053; 24 Jan 91 1:36 CST Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 1:08:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #62 BCC: Message-ID: <9101240108.ab09347@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jan 91 01:07:52 CST Volume 11 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Thomas Farmer] Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring) [Peter Marshall] Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Ed Greenberg] Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Heath Roberts] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Lars Poulsen] Re: Israel Connectivity Status [David Lemson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sleeping Beagle Subject: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 14:55:42 NZD Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > > desirable except in economics textbooks, ... > Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications > environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco. ... > The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* > deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal > monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that > monopoly have been removed. Regulation does have its place, and > telcos that gain the privilege of monopoly must be prepared to > surrender some of the normal privileges of the market as well. Wrong. There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two companies have tried but have got nowhere. People in New Zealand cannot shop elsewhere, there may be no legal problems with setting up another shop, it's just that no one can afford to! sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:24:21 PST Organization: The 23:00 News Re: What we assume is "well known" in this area -- as Mr. Margolin says -- and what can be done "outside of the scope of simple law enforcement" -- as Mr. Jacobson had said: perhaps not so much is so well known, and the scope of simple law enforcement re: this topic seems neither narrow nor exactly "simple." In this regard, it can be instructive to examine some of the statutes that govern this area. For example, in Washington State, there is currently a legislative effort to perform not-so-minor further surgery on the state's "wiretap" statute for law enforcement use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. This would expand the use of the latter in general, and broaden use of the former to cover any and all "crimes." The "further surgery" involved refers to what was a fairly restrictive law that generally required consent of all parties for interception or recording. Peter Marshall halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) peterm@halcyon.uucp or peterm@halcyon.wa.com The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:49 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA Patrick, Thanks for your comments on Teleconnect (Telecom*USA). I have a few followup questions: 1. You mention a rate of .29/minute for voicemail. Is that also the rate for Voicenews? [Moderator: Yes, I think it is. You can also get Voice News on a 700 number if you are registered with Telecom*USA for 1+ or 10835.] 2. What's the timed rate for incoming 800 service? Is it distance sensitive or flat? Does it work instate? [Moderator: It is flat rate; I think 29 cents per minute during the day and 21 cents at night. The 800 caller reaches the switch in Iowa; it in turn outdials to the appropriate number.] 3. How are the rates for LD calls placed on your personal DID 800 number (let's call this a payphone call.) Do they reflect the .29/ minute inbound to the switch, or are they competitive to other direct dialed point-to-point service? [Moderator: All they charge for calls to my 800 number is the 29 cent or 21 cent rate. For outgoing calls I make through them the rates are much less; whatever they charge; competitive with others.] 4. On a payphone call, can you reorder the switch after your called party disconnects, thus saving a second hotel charge for an 800 number call? (Press # and "dial another call"?) [Moderator: On any call I make to their switch (for voicenews, outbound on a long distance call, etc, the # will reorder the switch. In voicemail / voicenews it has another meaning at some levels, but once back at the main menu then it reorders the switch there also.] 5. If you don't have tone available, will the payphone service time out to the Teleconnect operator? [Moderator: Yes. I think if you are noted in their records as having rotary dial then once you dial your 800 access number to the switch it immediatly shunts you to the operator. Otherwise it will eventually time out to the operator anyway, whence she will first ask for your card number, then take your request. However to use the enhanced features such as voicenews or voicemail, you obviously have to have tone to work through the menus. The operator won't stay on the line to help with that stuff.] 6. You state that MCI took over. Have you experienced any changes in service as a result of this? I'm skittish -- my SBS service was once taken over by MCI (or was it Sprint) then disappeared and turned into the surviving company's generic service. [Moderator: So far I have noticed nothing except that customer service now answers the phone 'Telecom/MCI, may I help you'. Skyline merged with SBS, then SBS went into MCI. One reason I am not yet dropping my AT&T account (or converting Telecom*USA to one-plus is I want to wait and see what happens when MCI digs in in earnest. If they screw it up too badly I can bail out in a hurry.] Thanks for your comments. It sounds neat. An 800 number to call home on (and check messages) sounds worthwhile. Of course, Pathetic*Bell doesn't have distinctive ringing yet... Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices. They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris, IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as of about 1986. IBT has always been a leader in new telephone technology. The only exception to full CLASS service is Caller*ID and that should be in place throughout 312/708 within a year or so. You'll recall we were also first with cellular service in the early 1980's. We had E-911 in the middle-1970's, and TSPS in all offices about the same time. We had Centrex here in 1967. Yes, they had Centrex in the old #5 crossbar offices as well as TSPS. Truly amazing, the folks from IBT. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA Date: 23 Jan 91 18:03:32 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >[Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary) ... >MCI just recently took over ... :) let's give MCI a chance! :) Let's not (after my billing problem). [stuff deleted] >The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes: True >A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number, >and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the >seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their From what I've been told is that there are several users per 800 number. [stuff about calling cards deleted] The Telecom*USA card is surcharged $.40 (at least in their southern region ). I still have a card that was a SouthLand calling card. (They were bought by SouthernNet which merged into Telecom*USA.) There is no surcharge on this card when dialing via 950. [stuff about 800 numbers deleted] >me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s). The personal >800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second >increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per Telecom*USA is not offering the Hotline 800 service since the merger with MCI. The Personal 800 service is the new one ... there are two rates for it. The non PrimeTime rate of $5/mo and something around $.25/min billed in full minutes. PrimeTime rates (in addition to the normal primetime rates) is $2/mo and $.225/min day and $.1083/min evnings/night/weekend (PrimeTime Hours). [stuff deleted] >800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA -- >is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the >card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'. See above. >service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all >nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on >callers in voicemail, etc. They seem to have full international >service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a >payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give >me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number, >the price is certainly right! I dont think they will add the hotline 800 numbers anymore. The ANI is also done with the Personal 800 service ... But with the Telecom*USA card and MCI Card (which looks like the Telecom*USA card but as a 14 digit PIN) and the SoutherNet/SouthLand card they only give origninating city. You can probbly add Personal 800 numbers to a Telecom*USA/Teleconect account. Telecom*USA/MCI summary of rates: Telecom*USA card surcharge $.40 + regular rates. MCI*CARD surcharge $.80 + regular rates. SouthLand/SouthernNet no surcharge on 950; same as Telecom*USA dial one. PrimeTime $7.50/mo $.1083/min during plan hours. PrimteTime 800 $2/mo additional $.225/min day and $.1083 other times. >I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers, >voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not >handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all >that to AT&T. PAT] Wow, and I thought my bills were high ... Bill [Moderator's Note: My total LD bill from AT&T and TelecomUSA for *personal* calls is about $100-120 per month, not including the voicenews and voicemail stuff from Telecom*USA. The bill is higher than that, but I get my office to pay for their share of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:25:35 GMT Pat writes: >The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one >apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new >apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the >tune of $45,000. PAT I have a hard time believing this: a year or so ago, Southern Bell sent me a notice saying that I was over my $250 long distance credit limit about halfway through the billing month. Once I called the business office to check on the situation, they said it wasn't a problem to increase the limit, but that all accounts have some limit to prevent large losses due to fraud. My carrier was also AT&T. It seems that someone would question a phone bill to an _apartment_ of more than a few thousand dollars. Did the {Tribune} cite a source for these figures? Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu [Moderator's Note: I suspect the {Tribune} just worked from the same AT&T press release as everyone else who received it including me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:41:55 GMT In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: > The issue > of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought > by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming > their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too. > AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon > universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to > live with it. To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use > 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their > networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950 > access are integral to their design. AT&T's network was always the > default, so the other access methods were never included. I haven't > seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now, > but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy. While this is a nice try from the PR department, it just does not cut it. The argument is technically flawed, two ways: (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP to manage this). (2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this solution. It would be more elegant for ATT to push for the second solution, thus putting the burden of software changes nominally on the LECs. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:34:22 GMT TELECOM Moderator asked, >>On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >>maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >>with news? I have been trying to get in touch with some friends in Rehovot, Israel, who have an account on BITNET. (A machine called VOLCANI) Ironically, I received a "PATH LOST TO VOLCANI" for the past week until about two days ago, when I received an "all is well" response from my friends. The Israeli government is urging people to return to work and not give Hussein a victory. The net appears to be up. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana [Moderator's Note: I understand however that large gatherings of people are still discouraged (perhaps forbidden under the emergency laws) for the time being until further notice. Zubin Meta was to conduct the symphony on Wednesday night; it had to be cancelled. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #62 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24771; 25 Jan 91 4:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04519; 25 Jan 91 2:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05877; 25 Jan 91 1:52 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:25:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #63 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250125.ab00814@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace' [Toby Nixon] Lotus Database Killed [John Higdon] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Syd Weinstein] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Roy Smith] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [John R. Levine] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order ("AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [H. Roberts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace' Date: 24 Jan 91 12:57:26 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA (From CompuServe Online Today Electronic Edition, January 23, 1990) LOTUS PULLS MARKETPLACE Lotus Development Corp. has decided to cancel work on Lotus MarketPlace: Households, a CD-ROM database product of names, addresses, and marketing information on 120 million US households. The company also said it will discontinue Lotus MarketPlace: Business, a database of information on seven million US businesses that began shipping in October 1990. Lotus MarketPlace: Households was scheduled for shipment in March. Lotus and Equifax, which provided the data in MarketPlace, said the decision to cancel the two products came after an assessment of the public concerns and misunderstanding of the product, and the substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully address consumer privacy issues. "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we believe that the actual data content and controls built into the product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief executive officer. "After examining all of the issues we have decided that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider." 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: Lotus Database Killed Date: 24 Jan 91 13:28:58 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Never underestimate the power of the "vox populi". After receiving thirty thousand complaints against the database to be delivered on CD-ROM starting in March, Dan Shimmel of Lotus announced that the product would be scrapped. "Much of the criticism [of the product] came from sophisticated computer users on the nationwide Usenet computer network, who began a grass-roots campaign against the product that spread quickly", according to the story in the {San Jose Mercury}. What more need be said? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Most of you know I did not have the objection to the product expressed by many of you in this forum and elsewhere on the net. I could have lived with it or not ... but I am *very pleased* to see the way organizations and institutions are beginning to respect and recognize the power of this net. I've said it before: email, in all its variations, both as individual correspondence and as a newsgroup is an extremely potent tool. The situation with Lotus proves it. Do *not* hesitate to write letters to people who can make changes in things which need changing. Do not hesitate for a minute to use this net just like the newspapers have been used for years: as a forum -- and a powerful one at that -- to get your message across. And to those who say we mustn't 'annoy' certain companies, organizations or individuals with too much mail because they might grow angry and pull the plug on mail/news, I say let them go ahead and pull it. If *they* can't deal with it in a responsible and forthright manner then they have no ethical or moral right to be part of the international email network anyway. I do not promote or advocate obscene or harassing mail. But if you have something to say, feel perfectly free to say it in email. Your messages can make a difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:15:51 GMT tel@cdsdb1.att.com writes: >Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a >device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a >box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into >the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It >also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. >My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and >PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have >no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. The box is a two wire to eight wire adapter. Now don't panic, it doesn't touch the two wires themselves, but adds some other signals. It leaves tip, ring, A and A-1 alone (the center four). It does add a programming resistor -- more in a second -- and a pad optionally to the loop. In a true data circuit, you want the outgoing carrier to arrive at the CO at -10dbm. However, the loss in your loop varies by condition, length, and other factors. What the traditional modems did was output their signal at a higher level, and have the phone company measure the loss in the line and add a pad. The RJ-42,3,4,5 series eight wire jacks offer this ability by coming in flavors (values of the pad) to match possible line losses. These flavors have a resistor that an appropriate modem can use to adjust its output to the correct value to get the best signal at the CO. This is the PROG position. No pad is placed on the line itself, and the modem does the work via a resistor on two of the unused positions. In the FLL, or Fixed Loss Loop, position, a pad is placed to drop the output volume by a fixed amount, and the line is not measured. I have Bell of PA put these on all our modem lines, and they call them RJ45's. Note there are other ways of wiring the boxes, and then they have different numbers, but all the same purpose. Other numbers indicate if they support exclusion key wiring, automatic jumpering, etc. Are they worth it? Most interactive modems don't use them, if your modem has a four wire (six positions, four used) mod plug, it doesn't use them. If the modem has an eight wire modular plug, it probably does. However, some modems are loud on purpose, to compensate for long loops and the loss. These sometimes need a pad, and the FLL position provides that. However, what I like better, is if you have Bell of PA put this jack in, the line is assigned a 3NDDA number (3NDDA XXX-XXXX where x's are the phone number) Then you get Data Repair service to call instead of the usual repair service, (Yea, no more is the line ok questions, just a knowledgable person on a test board actually answering the phone) and here in Phila, a two hour response time guarantee. (And I mean that 24 hours a day. I have gotten things fixed at 3 AM). And all of that for no more per month that without the jack, only a one time charge up front. And that charge, here, used to be reasonable. I haven't done it in a while, but it was about twice the charge without the special jack. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:38:53 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack [...] It also > has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. There is a label on the box that > reads exactly as follows: > For use as USOC RJ- > 41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, > RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Personally, I think it's a crock, but anyway, here's what it all means. FLL is Fixed Loss Loop and PROG is for Programmed Loss Loop. What all that means is that you have a loop of copper wire running from the central office (CO) to your jack. Depending on the length of the loop (i.e. the distance from your building to the CO) the resistance, and hence the loop loss, will vary. In the programmed mode, inside the little box is a resistor which is used to compensate for the loop loss; the box should have come with a little package of fixed resistors; the tech who installed the box was supposed to have measured the loop loss and installed the proper resistor based on the results of his measurement. USOC is just an acronym which stands for Universal Service Ordering Code. It's telephone-speak for "part number", more or less. All of the RJ-4X-Y jacks are variations on an 8-pin data jack. According to the documentation I have, "Data configurations use jacks which incorporate components to limit signal power levels of data equipment. Data equipment with a maximum signal power output of -9dBm are not limited to data configurations."; I interpret that last part as "any modem you buy today can just be plugged into a plain old ordinary RJ-11 voice jack". I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences; both have tip and ring on pins 4/5 (prog mode) and also on pins 1/2 under control of a switch and through what's called a "Pad" (FLL mode), and the programming resistor on pins 7/8; the resistor has no internal connections; I guess it's up to whatever is plugged into the jack to put it in series with some part of the modem circuitry if it wants. The note on the 41M says it's for use in multiple installations, but I don't see how it's any different from the 41S. A RJ-36X is a fancy jack with shorting bars, apparantly used for putting multiple series-connected modems on a single line; if you unplug the plug, the shorting bars just pass the signal through the jack, but somehow I'd be surprised if that's what you really have. The bottom line is that if you are using any sort of standard off-the-shelf dialup modem (212A, V.22bis, PEP, HST, etc, etc, etc) you don't need the fancy RJ-4X jack; just have them put in a plain old RJ-11 voice jack and that's it. Even better, don't even tell the installer that it's a data line, that usually just gets them confused. Come to think of it, even our four-wire LAD circuits that we run 128 kbps over using special leased-line modems are terminated in plain old RJ-11's (although, they probably have some other RJ code in that case). 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 24 Jan 91 12:54:50 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16347@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and >PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have >no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. >I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is >that just a ploy to make money or are they useful? They are useful in some circumstances. The signal loss from the CO to the customer premises varies a lot depending on the distance, condition of the wire and such. Some data communication equipment, particularly older stuff, depends on knowing the amount of the signal loss. There are two ways to handle this: Fixed Loss Loop (FLL) puts a PAD circuit in the connector block to make the total loss between 8 and 9 DB. The installer measures the loss from the CO (by calling a test number that produces a known signal) which is usually less than 8 dB and puts in a block with an appropriate PAD to bring the total loss up to spec. Programmable (P or PROG) puts a resistor into the connector block whose value depends on the measured loss. The resistor is not directly connected to the phone line but is connected to pins PR and PC (7 and 8) of the jack for the use of a PAD in the equipment plugged into it. The FLL/PROG switch unhooks the connector block PAD in PROG mode, since equipment that uses the programming resistor doesn't want its signal pre-attenuated. When the jack has both FLL and PROG with a switch, it's called an RJ41S. With the programming resistor only, it's a RJ45S. With various obsolescent arrangements that involve a telephone with a DATA button, its an RJ42S, RJ43S, RJ46S, or RJ47S. These are all the same physical data jack, but wired in different ways. If you are using something like a V.32 or Telebit modem, the data line is overkill since these modems have their own compensating circuits. Also, be sure that the installers are measuring the loss and setting the PAD and programming resistor appropriately. If they aren't, the jack is no better than a regular voice RJ-11 and, in all likelihood, the signal quality on the line isn't any better than a POTS line, either. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 07:39:40 GMT In article <16336@accuvax.nwu.edu> eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) writes: >I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT >US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a >portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by >this Friday (Jan 25th). The switch should handle as many lines a >possible. Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged >telecom lines". >Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in >color. Probably a containerized DMS-10, which is actually brown and green. NT keeps several at its RTP facility ready to ship in case of a service affecting emergency somewhere. One of these will handle about 10,000 lines in the standard package (not a full-sized trailer) which can be air-dropped. There is also a containerized version of the DMS-100, that is four full-size trailers, and can handle about 50,000 lines. This one's a little more expensive and not designed to be airlifted. But if we can ship an Abrams tank, why not? If your Supernode front end dies but peripherials are still OK, NT can ship you one in four man-portable boxes on any airline. They snap together and have fiber cables between the modules. The Supernode actually is a DMS-100, just with a different front end. The older version DMS-100 uses a proprietary processor called the NT-40, the Supernode uses either a Motorola 68020 (most common), a 68030 (in the field) or an 88000 (still in the works) as its main CPU. The peripherial modules are the same, and all the software runs on either verison. The Supernode can handle more messages per time than the NT-40, and the NT-40 is gradually being phased out. Within a year or two, new versions of software (called BCS for batch change supplement) won't run on the NT-40. Northern doesn't require you to buy new versions when they are released, so there will be some NT-40's around for quite a while -- Northern Telecom will provide pack repairs for twenty years from the date it's officially discontinued. There's a newer switch, the S/DMS-100, which is designed to have the horsepower for higher speed direct digital communications. Its market niche is for telcos that want to implement FiberWorld, which is a really cool concept in telecommunciations. NT has some marketing videos that are pretty interesting. I'll find out if they're available to the public and let everyone know ... I think you can borrow them for a couple of weeks without charge, but there is a deposit. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #63 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26849; 25 Jan 91 6:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08112; 25 Jan 91 4:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04519; 25 Jan 91 2:59 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:54:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #64 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250154.ab06988@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:54:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Ted Marshall] Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Peter Marshall] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (AT&T Building in Baghdad) [S. Mitchell] Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Julian Macassey] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Bob Goudreau] Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Louis J. Judice] Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines' [Roger Fajman] Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [Macy Hallock] Re: Japanese Payphones [Steve Wolfson] Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 16:16:18 PST From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme In article <16341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) writes: > Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for > E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the > system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has > convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 > users, pay for this system. I believe that most area do some sort of ganeral charge for 911 procurement and support. Most areas, including No. California, put a general surcharge on the phone bills. I hadn't heard of a 411 surcharge. > If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop > people from using the system. [...] I disagree. If I look out my window and see a fire across the street and I know that I'll get charged $5.00 for calling 911, I'll call the fire department directly or figure that someone else will call it in. 911 should be designed so that if you are reporting what truly looks like an emergency, you have no reason not to call it in. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. [Moderator's Note: That was precisely the argument made here when there was discussion of who should pay for 911 service. The City of Chicago took the position that nothing should stand in the way of someone making a legitimate call for emergency help; and certainly not the fear that they would not be able to pay for it later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 19:01:17 PST Dennis Pratt's 1/22 post on financing statewide E911 in MA presents some interesting questions that are likely not limited to the MA example. At the same time, this look at experience in one state does not address other issues in E911 statewide system development that have been noticed in other states. To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a national level? Peter Marshall ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:33:28 PST From: Steve Mitchell Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) wrote: >>Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media >>Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb >>dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. > I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building. I can't > remember what the letters stood for, though. According to a report on National Public Radio's morning news program "Morning Edition" (1/23), the building being shown bombed by a F-117A Stealth Fighter/Bomber was the Baghdad "Public Telephone & Telegraph" building. This building, according to telecom professionals in Saudi Arabia, should have been staffed by 10 to 20 civilian technicians and operators at the time of the attack (pre-dawn/early morning). Because of the F-117's stealth capabilities, it is not believed that the occupants of the building would have heard or seen any signs of warning until the 2,000 bound bomb struck the building. They did not mention whether military personnel would have been staffing the building in part. However, they did report that the Iraqi's most valuable lines of military communication and switching would have been located under the building and immune to the effects of the attack which, apparently, was meant to decapitate it's top two of twelve stories in order to render the microwave equipment on the roof useless. Professional Comment: Unquestionably, civilian telecom equipment can be a valuable military asset to any country. The fact that redundant military communications systems were, undoubtably, in place and are possibly still operational does not make civilian telecom facilities any less of a valuable channel of command and control to the enemy's military infrastructure. Personal Comment: I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the people of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the conflict may have been civilian professionals like you and I. The contradictions in the philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of their goals and their means, abound. Steve_Mitchell@csufresno.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Date: 25 Jan 91 05:17:40 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16306@accuvax.nwu.edu>, joseph@milton.u.washington.edu (Joseph Chan) writes: > I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally > standardized. The ringing voltage on telephone lines varies between 150 and 40 Volts. The voltage depends upon, the local standard ringing voltage at the CO, the length of the loop (phone line) between the CO and the subscriber, the current pulled by the ringer (called REN in the US) and lastly the number of ringers attached to the line. So, you can consider that the standard voltage is about 90-100 Volts. What does vary is the frequency of the voltage. In the the U.S. the frequency is usually 20 Hz, it can be other frequencies. In other parts it is often 50 Hz. So, briefly, a gong (bell) type ringer from the U.S. may not work in other countries because they are picky about the ringing frequency. Cheap and sleezy gong ringers will ring with any type of AC applied. Also "warble" ringers, the ones that sound like sick birds or crickets in heat are usually "FCC Type B" ringers and will respond to frequencies between 15 and 68 Hz - the truth is they will respond up to a 150Hz most of the time. So, a warble ringer should work anywhere. > My specific question is that what is the phone line > voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out > the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia). I thought the specific question was ringing voltage, now it is line voltage. OK, I'll play along. Hong Kong is mostly UK gear so the line voltage will be around 50 - 52 Volts. I am not familiar with Indonesia, but you will find that the line voltage for most of the world is 48V, give or take a few. The exception being Western Germany which is 60V. Some parts of Italy used to be 60V too. The Phillipines have a ton of Seimens gear, so they may be 60V. But in short, assuming the dialing system of the phone/fax is compatible be it pulse or DTMF, and assuming the ringer is a class B, it will work anywhere in the world. 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: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:14:39 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates In article <16362@accuvax.nwu.edu>, sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > > The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* > > deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal > > monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that > > monopoly have been removed. > Wrong. > There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New > Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up > (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful > companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two > companies have tried but have got nowhere. When you say "there is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in NZ", are you talking about *local* service as well as long distance? The original poster mentioned that NZ's new ROCs (regional operating companies) were analogous to the RBOCs that exist in the US. I therefore inferred that the ROCs (like the RBOCs) held legal monopolies for providing local service within their respective regions. (Note the distinction between local service, which even in the US is still a regulated monopoly, and competitive long-distance service). When I said "there is still a regulation giving the telco a legal monopoly", I was referring to local service. Is it indeed the case that NZ has opened even *local* telephone service to competition? If so, what measures exist to ensure fair dealings in setting up inter-connectivity between competing carriers, use of rights-of-way for land lines, telephone number assignment, etc? Or are you merely asserting that only long-distance service has been deregulated, but that no new competitor has yet been able to gain significant market share? In the US this was less of a problem, since new LD companies were already waiting in the wings when AT&T lost its monopoly on LD service. But in NZ it sounds like the problem is that the government deregulated the LD industry without bothering to break up the old monopoly. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:46:49 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 24-Jan-1991 1042" Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts I haven't noticed the tones you mention on telephone conversations, but on CNN and NBC I'm driven absolutely crazy by the "bleeps" from the DEC VT-xxx terminals scattered through the newsroom. Having used these devices for the past twelve years or so, whenever I hear it, I instinctively look back towards my home PC to see if a mail message was just received. Drives me nuts! ljj ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 18:35:57 EST Subject: Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines' > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a > box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into > the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It > also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. Sounds like an RJ-41S jack, or some sort of adapter to make a regular RJ-11 type jack look to the modem like an RJ-41S jack. FLL means something like Fixed Loss Level. When the RJ-41S jack is installed, the loss is supposed to be measured to the central office. The jack contains a resistor to attenuate the rather high level signal put out by the modem just enough so that it arrives at the central office at the maximum permitted strength. This requires a modem with an 8-wire connector intended for use with FLL. AT&T sells modems, such as the 2224B, 2224CEO, and DL424, that can use this arrangement. With the PROG setting, the modem actually senses from the jack what the transmit level should be and sets itself accordingly. This again requires the 8-wire cable with a modem designed for that. If you plug a modem designed for FLL into the RJ-41S jack with an 8-wire cable and set the switch to PROG, it will not work at all. A regular RJ-11 type cable can also be used with an RJ-41S jack by plugging it into the center. The switch should be set to PROG, so that the transmit level is not unnecessarily reduced by the jack. With an RJ-11 (permissive) connection the modem transmits at a standard level with no compensation for the loss to the central office. This standard level is less than is used with the FLL arrangement. I'm trying to remember what that level is: -11 dBm sticks in my mind, but I'm not certain. Many AT&T modems can be used with either four-wire cable or eight-wire cable. The modular plug on the eight-wire cable has a key on it that forces the modem into the right mode. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 22:09 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <16307@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site? >Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from >your local Fujitsu reps? I'm getting really sick of diddling this >lame-o piece of junk we have over here. Comments and past experience >welcome. I am a former owner of an interconnect telphone company. I have twenty years of telecom engineering experience. I am also a certified Starlog technician (among other things). (Other references on request ) The Starlog is a fine system. Like any programmable system, it's only as good as the people who set it up. Most disgruntled Starlog users only need proper assistance in getting the system configured and the system performs well. I also know the factory engineering team quite well and can assist with getting your local Starlog dealer to be properly attentive. I would be happy to offer some suggestions ... you have a sound product there and maybe we can get it to work to your satisfaction. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:41:36 CST From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Craig R. Watkins writes: > Sandy Kyrish writes: >In article <16278@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy >Kyrish) writes: >> returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no >> Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their >> own country. >I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian >Cultural Center). I seem to remember a big display with interesting >pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't >recall the exact content of the pictures). Actually they may be selling them as souveniers. There was a recent article in {Business Week} (I can't find the exact issue) about the Japanese use of calling cards. A collectors market has sprung up for these cards and NTT has managed to end with with a fairly hefty hunk of change from cards that are purchased but not used. The article also mentioned that these type of cards may become used for items other than payphones. Like everywhere else there is talk of standardization of these cards and concerns that this would create a new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit within standard banking laws. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:41:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code The area codes 310 and 510 (both in California) and 410 (Maryland) will be the first of the N10 form. When they come on line, they also will be the first that can be formed by transposing two digits in a previously-existing area code, so beware of people trying to "correct" them by changing 10 to 01. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #64 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27361; 25 Jan 91 7:13 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04937; 25 Jan 91 5:23 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08112; 25 Jan 91 4:01 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 2:55:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #65 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250255.ab16477@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 02:55:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [John R. Levine] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Ed Greenberg] Re: How do you Program This Phone? [Jerry Durand] Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Larry Svec] Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Dave Levenson] Re: Japanese Payphones [Bob Schultz] Re: Videos by Phone [barj] Re: ISDN Links in UK [Richard Jennings] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Barton F. Bruce] Panasonic Cordless 3910-R Comments [Ben Singer] Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 23 Jan 91 14:36:49 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16302@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping >that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they >have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] As a former SBS customer inherited by MCI, my experience is that it's far too much to ask from MCI. For a few weeks, the local telco crossed my wires with some business and several hundred dollars of their phone calls appeared on my bill. Clearing it up with New England Tel took about five minutes, but MCI was completely inept. Despite repeated letters and phone calls, they were unable to understand what the problem was, even though I even provided them with the correct number to bill and a reference at NET to verify it. Over a year later, long after I had switched to another LD company in disgust (don't worry, Pat, I paid for all the calls I actually made) they started pestering me with collection agencies. I had to have the state DPU yell at them before they went away. Good luck. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the tipoff. I'll keep my eyes open and see what happens over the next month or two. Collection agencies never concern me; but having to explain something over and over to customer service is annoying. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:54 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Lars Poulsen writes: > The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make > trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am > sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service > for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third- > party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP > to manage this). Actually, 10xxx processing takes place at the RBOC (or other operating company) facility. There already _is_ a class of service that would allow this ... a coinless public phone, for example. There are other classes of service, including a predefined hotel/motel class of service that allowed the hotel industry to serve the travelling community for years. The hotel switches could also be programmed to allow 10xxx+0+ dialing, but not 10xxx+1+ dialing. Bally's in Las Vegas has this programming. They charge .50/call for access of this nature. It may be expensive, considering what you're paying for the room, but at least you know how much it will be, and can reorder the line with '#' afterwards for another call. It should also be remembered that the hotel isn't sunk if a call gets ticketed on AT&T. After all, they have a record of the call on their call detail recorder, and can add it to your hotel bill. The reason (IMHO) that hotels won't allow this sort of dialing is that they'd rather route the calls through their contracted Alternative Operator Service (AOS) which will (a) rape the customer and (b) kick back a significant portion of the proceeds to the hotel. Occasionally I find a hotel that has dial tone in their pairs, rather than sleeze tone. In fact, the number of such hotels is increasing. The majority I've experienced however, treat the phone as a profit center, and have jumped firmly on the newest telecom bandwagon -- "caveat emptor as long as we can get away with it." In my post about Las Vegas, I neglected to mention (so will mention here) that the sets in the hotel had RJ-11's in them marked Data port. A nice touch. Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: How do you Program This Phone? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:28:20 PST Since there have been several questions lately about programming cell-phones, I'll repeat an offer I made last year. I have a copy of the Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89. If you didn't get a copy when you purchased your phone, please send me your name & address and I'll mail you a copy. Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. jdurand@cup.portal.com FAX: 408 356-4659 (requires CNG) ------------------------------ From: Larry Svec Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows Date: 24 Jan 91 19:05:09 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL My town (Wauconda, IL) has 911. It shares the same dispatch with a number of surrounding towns. When you call 911, they use the national police point to point frequency of 155.37 Mhz to relay to the proper local town or if it is unincorporated area (such as where I live), they call the Lake County PD. Typical scenario ... I once called 911 for a car fire, then heard the same person that answered the phone call Wauconda Township Fire on their point to point 155.37. Wauconda FD dispatched on their frequencies of 153.89. The 911 dispatcher called Lake County PD also on 155.37 about it. Lake County PD dispatched on their 155.655 repeater. My conclusion is based on extensive 'scanner' monitoring ... some of the towns in the US with 911 serving a few towns seem to then further dispatch to the proper town via the 155.37 point to point frequencies. Larry Svec - KD9OF home: 708-526-1256 e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl VHF: 145.150- work: 708-632-5259 fax: 708-632-2413, -3741 UHF: 443.575+ [Moderator's Note: I frequently scan the twenty or so frequencies of the Chicago PD. (460.050 --> 460.600 megs). The suburbs which touch the city seem to monitor the city frequency for the area bordering them, while maintaining their own frequencies, usually at 470 megs. The suburbs which touch us all have their own 911, except I think Lincolnwood shares with Skokie. It is not uncommon to hear the Evanston dispatcher come on 460.375 (Chicago Districts 20 / 24) with a message saying the Evanston PD is on a chase and asking Chicago to help, or vice-versa. For fires, when Chicago Emergency answers, the default is the PD, but the dispatcher merely tap a button on the console and the call is patched right over to Fire in a matter of two seconds or less. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator Date: 25 Jan 91 00:05:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16338@accuvax.nwu.edu>, syd@dsinc.dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) writes: [ an article describing a telemarketing machine selling AT&T-agregator toll service] > It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the > telemarketers look good. At least those you can tell your bank of > lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either. Here in central NJ, we have been blitzed by a local dealer selling AT&T's home-security systems. Their systems have called our lines, in number sequence, three or four times over the past three weeks. The recording mentions AT&T several times before identifying the local dealer in an almost parenthetical tone. I called the local dealer and told them that if their machine continued calling the same numbers, I would consider it harassment, and would report it as such to local law-enforcement authorities. I have just subscribed to Call*Block service from NJ Bell. My intention is to use this service to prevent inbound calls from a certain telemarketing company in Bound Brook. They call almost every day, with a different advertising message, from a different local business, each time. The Caller*ID indicates that it's from the same number every time. That number is now the first one on the list of callers I don't want to hear from. 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 [Moderator's Note: Over here it is known as 'call screening'. Isn't it a wonderful thing! *60 #01# adds the 'last call received' to the list of numbers blocked whether you know the number or not. *69 calls back the last call you received so you can give them a taste of their own medicine if you feel like it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Schultz Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Date: 25 Jan 91 05:04:16 GMT Organization: Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd., Osaka, Japan In article <16357@accuvax.nwu.edu> crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) writes: > I saw them [phone cards] being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the > Polynesian Cultural Center). I remember a big display with interesting > pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't > recall the exact content of the pictures). I was certainly interested > in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much > for simple curiosity. 1000 yen cards are popular here (~$7.50, Y132~$1), with hundreds of different pictures available. NTT's most popular card last year had a picture of a cat on the front. Usually a small bonus is given when purchasing the cards; 1000 yen will get you 105 units (1050 yen). 10 yen (7.5 cents) will get you a three minute local call, one of the last remaining bargains in Japan! Robert J. Schultz Artificial Intelligence Research Lab telephone: (81) 06-908-6835 Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd. facsimile: (81) 06-906-6052 1048, Kadoma, Kadoma-shi e-mail: schultz@mew.mei.co.jp Osaka 571, Japan ------------------------------ From: barj Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:50:05 GMT In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones. And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-) The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market place by 1995. >Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time, Well I recently saw a audio/video link of an ISDN 64kbps link. Using some neat compression techniques, the quality was good - but not good enough to watch a movie. Anyway, if it takes two hours, isn't your phone bill going to be huge? You may as well rent the video ... All I can think is that it is some sort of order-by-phone cable service. Although I would be interested to be proven wrong. esupg@uk.ac.warwick.cu Andrew University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Bargery 154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK. vox : +44 926 881264 DISCLAIMER: I am doubting Reuters, not the poster... ------------------------------ From: Richard Jennings Subject: Re: ISDN Links in UK Date: 24 Jan 91 13:52:19 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK. Olly Morgan writes: > Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this > system work on any phone line? If the later applies this is pretty > amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?) > What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances? ISDN is completely digital - it will run over the existing copper pair from the switch to the subscriber - subject to the PTT (BT in this case) approving the results of a BERT (Bit Error Rate Test). Of course, you must be on a digital exchange. Hope this helps, Richard Jennings, Software Development Engineer Pinewood Information Systems Division, the home of HP's Advanced Image Management System (HP AIMS), AdvanceLink, OpenMail and Multi-media communications Hewlett-Packard Nine Mile Ride Voice: (+44)/(0) 344 763738 ADMD=GOLD 400 C=GB Wokingham Fax: (+44)/(0) 344 763526 OU1=Pinewood ORG=hp Berkshire RG11 3LL E-mail: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.com GN=Richard PRMD=hp England or: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.co.uk SN=Jennings ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Date: 25 Jan 91 02:47:11 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16291@accuvax.nwu.edu>, DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues > to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my > breath! :( Buy a share of AT&T stock, and ask him at a stockholder's meeting. If you prefer, write to shareholder relations and explain your frustration and intended action, and ask for whatever info you are entitled to to be sure you will be heard at the meeting. I bet your message will not be ignored, but the lesson you get from their PR types may make you sick. [Moderator's Note: That is the reason why I can't recommend that people send letters to customer service or public relations departments. Those folks are NOT in a position to make the changes you request. Their job is merely to buffer your calls and letters so the people at the top don't have to read them or think about anything much. If you are going to write email, send it to the places it will do the most good -- to the chairmen and managers of companies. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ben Singer Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments Date: 24 Jan 91 09:46:25 EST A member of this group suggested I post my comments on the new Panasonic 3910R cordless phone. I had tried several GE models, and then two Sanyos. All ranged from terrible to mediocre on reception; noise, poor voice quality, etc. While AT&T seemed to be getting good ratings in {Consumer Reports}, AT&T's distribution and promotion operation in Canada is incompetent and it was impossible to find one many months after they arrived, so I purchased the Panasonic. It is clearly superior to all others I tried; the voice quality (recept) is very good, still not as good as corded phones (volume) but discernibility is much better than Sanyo; the base station is excellent. The unit is light; there is little static upon angling the portable unit. For the price, it seems like the best buy around. NB: the model, 3910R (R) seems to be the Sound Charger model; this may be the same as AT&T's "Crystal Clarity" etc. Ben Singer Department of Sociology University of Western Ontario Singer@uwo.ca Singer@uwovax.bitnet N6A 5C2 (519) 660-0671 (home) (519) 679-2111 Ext 5137 ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 24 Jan 1991 16:37:15 EST From: LABXU@cunyvm.bitnet Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is an interface standard. Thanks, Adeola Osinuga ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #65 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20445; 27 Jan 91 1:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05281; 26 Jan 91 23:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01642; 26 Jan 91 22:38 CST Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #66 BCC: Message-ID: <9101262215.ab09844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson All Operators Were Not Created Equal [Steve Forrette] Re: Telecom*USA [W.L. Lance] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Hank Nussbacher] New, Very Simple Phone Scam [Jerry Leichter] OSPS [Mark Van Buskirk] UK Caller Identification [Andrew Bargery] Re: Accessing AT&T [Jack Dominey] Re: CNN/Baghdad [Louis J. Judice] Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid & High Frequency Loss [S. Forrette] 10835 by Request Only? [John C. Fowler] Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John C. Fowler] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Steven A. Minneman] Person Numbers [Ben Stoltz] What is 'Hello Direct'? [Marc A. Smith] Tariff Information Needed [Donald Yett] 301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 21:35:44 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: All Operators Were Not Created Equal MCI and Sprint may claim to have operators that are "just as good," but time after time, they prove themsevles wrong. I had misdialed a number today, and here's Sprint's version of "immediate credit": >> "Sprint operator" > "I need credit for a wrong number." >> "What did you dial to get me?" > (She doesn't know this already?) "Zero-Zero" >> "And what number are you calling me from?" > (Boy, she doesn't know much) "xxx-xxx-xxxx" Just what sort of equipment do they have anyway? They don't know who I am or how I got there. A few months ago, I read an article about the AOS sleaze. They had a picture of several people sitting in a room, with headsets on, with each operator sitting in front of a PC clone. The wrong choice, definitely! ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Lance" Subject: Re: Telecom*USA Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:48:47 GMT Pat, Does Telecom*USA's 800 service cost only $2.75 per month even for one line? Lance Ware Mac and IBM Reseller Try here first:lance@spud.img.rit.edu | Then here:wlw2286@ultb.rit.isc.edu Last Resort:wlw2286@ultb.UUCP [Moderator's Note: They are just $2.75 each. Of course, I am grandfathered under the old arrangements. Others here have written that Telecom*USA is now operating under MCI rates. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:31:27 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again > SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last >summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000 >calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill. > AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling >setups in various parts of the country since early 1990. I would appreciate that in the future full details be described. I have been aware of this phenomena for over two years now. It is not Jews who are setting up this scam, but rather Arabs mainly from the West Bank. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: I was going to post this myself but did not do so when the other submission arrived. The {Chicago Tribune} version of this made reference to the person involved being from the Gaza Strip. Neither of the versions were very complete. I do not know if he was identified as a Jew or Arab. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:17:23 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: New, Very Simple Phone Scam The {New York Times} a couple of days ago reported on a return to good old American values: No complicated high tech for these phone scammers, just simple fast talking. What they do is pick a number at random, dial it, and tell whoever answers that they are with telephone security and in the midst of some kind of test. As part of the test, the victim will shortly receive a call from an operator asking whether they approve of a third-party charge. The victim is to cooperate with the investigators and say "yes". If the victim agrees ... well, it doesn't take much guessing to fill in what happens next. If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off phone service. Apparently they have little trouble convincing enough people to go along to make this a going business. Jerry ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 24 09:58:31 CST 1991 Subject: OSPS Organization: AT&T Can anyone provide information on OSPS service? Several questions come to mind. What features will OSPS provide that TSPS doesn't? I'm aware of only one called " MECH. " I've heard that customers don't like this feature. Also, are LEC's using OSPS or is it just AT&T? It has been several years since I've worked with TSPS equipment. I believe all of the TSPS equipment has been replaced since then. Any comments? Mark Van Buskirk Rolling Meadows, Il ------------------------------ From: barj Subject: UK Caller Identification Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:58:29 GMT Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US, the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings. Is this true? Is a similar system used here? Is it automatic or (more likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it? Any information - please email or post. Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I haven't seen it here. Thanks in advance. esupg@uk.ac.warwick.cu Andrew University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Bargery 154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK. vox : +44 926 881264 [Moderator's Note: Where Caller*ID is available here, it is transmitted between the first and second ring. If you were monitoring or tapping the line when a call arrived, you would hear the data as it arrived on your end. I do not know precisely what system you have there, but I know enough about British Telecom to know they don't send it to you for free. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 24 10:07:01 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T Responding to Lars Poulsen in Digest V11, #62. >(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be >no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the >originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is >not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized >calls. You can certainly make third-party billed calls using 10288-0. I've done it from COCOT's on several occassions. Why can't hotels block 10XXX-1 and allow 10XXX-0? Hotel lines can be identified to the operator, who would not allow calls to be billed directly. Better still, hotels could allow 10XXX-1 calls and charge them directly to the room. Maybe I'm too honest by nature, but I really don't understand where the unauthorized billing problem comes from. >(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX >calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate >type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in >the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the >last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX >selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this >solution. I'm probably wading in over my head here, but ... isn't there a difference in the class of access between 950-YXXX and 10XXX? I refer to the access the LD carrier purchases from the local exchange company. The LEC's would probably be more than happy to provide 950 access for AT&T - as long as AT&T pays for it. If I'm right - please correct me otherwise - then AT&T winds up paying for extra access capacity specifically for this purpose. My own opinion is that AT&T should provide as many methods to reach the network as possible, including 950 and 800 access. As a lowly salesdrone, I have only a hazy comprehension of all the issues involved, I admit. But aren't we talking about software changes throughout the routing system and large-scale changes to billing systems (both AT&T's and the LEC's - AT&T would pay for both)? I still maintain that it wouldn't be cheap or easy, however desirable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:47:32 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 23-Jan-1991 1634" Subject: Re: CNN/Baghdad I was just listening to an interview with Ed Turner, VP News for CNN. (No relation to Ted Turner, BTW). He indicated the four-wire circuit has indeed been out for days, and that Inmarsat is currently being used (in his words, "Arnet sets it up in the hotel lobby and puts $4000 in quarters in it" :) ) Iraqi Ministry of Information people are there to kill the connection if he deviates from the pre-approved report he's sending. He also indicated that while CNN would definitely never offer to have shared the four-wire line, that the story about Iraq demanding it be shared or cut is not true. ljj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:04:36 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <16264@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andy Jacobson writes: >Well some places they still do ... in 415, you could try NXX-0046. >This motif is by no means universal though. I do know that in S.F., >(where the protesters are burning CHP cars right now) 431-0046 will >provide sweep tone, but I don't know the range or response. People outside the bay area can feel free to try this, as the call never supervises. (The downside of this is that you can't use it to haze people with three-way calling! :-) :-) ) Steve Forrette, forrette@eccs.nwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:31:22 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: 10835 by Request Only? Pat, you mentioned in a couple of past articles that Telecom*USA's carrier access code, 10835, as available on a line by request only. Just out of curiosity, I tried dialing 10835-1-700-555-4141 from my home phone in the San Diego area (619-546). I got the carrier ID message, even though I have never spoken with Telecom*USA. Perhaps they changed their minds about spontaneous public access? At any rate, if I were to try dialing a "real" number using 10835, and it went through, would the call show up on my phone company bill, or would Telecom*USA attempt to bill me themselves? John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu [Moderator's Note: I don't think 700-555-4141 counts for the purpose of making calls via 10835. After I had one of my numbers changed recently I tried using 10835 on that line and the call bounced because the ANI sent by Illinois Bell did not match anything in Telecom*USA's data base. Try it on some simple, inexpensive call and see what you get. I don't think you will get through. *If* you did get through then you would probably be billed at some point in the future by Telecom*USA. When they could not identify you, they would ask your local telco where to send the bill. Part of the rules regarding 10xxx style calling is that your local telco **MUST** supply billing information about you on request to the OCC. The fact that your number is non-pub does not matter. The OCC can have the information under the new rules. 'Casual callers' are a nuisance to many OCC's which is why some such as Telecom*USA disallow those calls until they at least have your name and address in their computer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:40:15 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator An interesting experience happened to me today. I was dialing a long distance call from a pay phone (true Pacific Bell) via AT&T. After dialing my card number, the call went through as usual, but there was no answer. I decided to try calling another number, so I pressed the switchhook for about half a second and released it, expecting a dial tone. (Using "#" hadn't occured to me at the time.) Instead, an AT&T operator came on the line. I asked how she got there, and she said she didn't know; my call had just come through as usual. After I explained what had happened, she just advised me to hold down the switchhook longer in the future. Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls in the same way tone users can press "#"? John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:07:06-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article <15921@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by > removing the 1+ from toll calls within it And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D. [Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area, and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 18:48:51 PST From: Ben Stoltz Subject: Person Numbers I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers". In the brave new world, people may have the option of calling me instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my fax, even if that means the fax in the hotel where I am staying instead of the fax machine where I work. To make this scheme work, the calling party dials a person number. I would like the person number to use a different dialing plan than the North American dialing plan (1-AAA-XXX-XXXX). Maybe 012-PPPPPPPPPP? New dial plan, everybody gets a whole bunch of phone numbers. To differentiate different addressable things, such as fax or answering machine or me, a sub-address is also required: 012-PPPPPPPPPP,SS. How does a person specify the subaddress? If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help, how would you do it? Maybe dial an 800 number computer answers dial more digits computer resolves number to a NA dial plan number and then computer transfers the call. Does ISDN make any of this any easier? How does the computer know where to route calls? Ben Stoltz stoltz@Eng.Sun.COM Sun Microsystems, Inc. (415)336-1733 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 22:43:32 EST From: Marc Subject: What is 'Hello Direct'? Hello Direct has been mentioned a number of times in Telecom. As a new subscriber I am interested but lack any information about this catalog. Could you enlighten me? Marc A. Smith UCLA - Sociology [Moderator's Note: 'Hello Direct' is a mail order firm specializing in a variety of telecom-related items such as telephone sets, headsets, autodialers and the like. They are located on the west coast. To be placed on their mailing list and receive a free subscription to their catalog phone 1-800-HI-HELLO. I think their prices are a bit high on some of their things. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Donald Yett Subject: Tariff Information Needed Date: 24 Jan 91 07:51:00 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Where would I contact to get tariff information for inclusion in a billing system ? [Moderator's Note: The issuer of the tariff, i.e. local telco or LD carrier, is the best place to start. They are required to show them to you (or send a copy for a reasonable copying fee). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:24:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland In Maryland, currently served only by area code 301: The entire eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay will go into 410. Along the western shore, 410 will reach as far south as Solomons (326 exchange). Lexington Park-Great Mills (I checked the 863 exchange) will stay in 301. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #66 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25894; 27 Jan 91 4:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04513; 27 Jan 91 2:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21364; 27 Jan 91 1:46 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 1:25:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #67 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270125.ab28028@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 01:25:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues) [Phydeaux] New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer' [Dave Levenson] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Rolf Meier] Re: Videos by Phone [Robert Virzi] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Jack Dominey] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Louis J. Judice] Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dave Levenson] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Jeff Carroll] Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [Jeff Carroll] Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted [Edgardo Richards] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 10:53:51 PST Subject: Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues) Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net From: Phydeaux In article <16302@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: >Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They >finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at >Telecom*USA rates. That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks >[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping >that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they >have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] I just called Telecom*USA and was told to call MCI if I wanted to inquire about service, so it would seem that MCI is *not* going to just leave them alone. The person I spoke with called it a "merger" but it sounds like they were just swallowed whole and are in the process of being digested ... Last time I called MCI to ask about their "personal 800" service I had the feeling I was going to be slammed, and they didn't have any info they could send me on it anyway. Are MCI's services the same as Telecom*USA's were and what exactly did Telecom offer? reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60057 312-549-8365 [Moderator's Note: Their services were similar (as are all OCC's), but I always thought Telecom*USA did things more efficiently, and that their charges were less than MCI's. When I call customer service, I still talk to *them* -- not MCI -- but that is probably because I am already their customer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer' Date: 25 Jan 91 00:30:42 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16364@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator adds, in part: > [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and > all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices. > They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always > been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris, > IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as A New Jerseyan wants to toot his horn, too: Morris, IL, did have an experimental ESS, using a technology never put into production, and it was before the late 1960's. The first 1ESS switch, the one that became the standard analog local central office technology, was trialed in the early 1960's in Succasunna, NJ. This was after the Morris trial, and before anybody else got production ESS. CLASS, including Caller*ID, was first offered in NJ. 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: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Date: 25 Jan 91 06:19:16 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16367@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the > complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance > service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: >> The issue >> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought >> by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming >> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be > no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the > originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is > not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized > calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class > of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls > without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power > in the POP to manage this). There ARE standard types of screening available that only allow calls to be billed to credit cards, third party or collect, but NEVER to the calling line. This kind of screening typically allows 1+ dialing anywhere, but kicks in on 0+ because local call accounting equipment can't tell what service the operator will be asked to provide. This sort of screening comes in several variations and has been available for a LONG time. This whole mess the hotels were fighting could have been simplified IF the LECs would have provided a modification to that standard screening that would do the following. As before, 1+ could do anything. 0+ would go to the presubscribed IXC and be screened. 10xxx1+ would be blocked because the hotel customer has NO business rerouting 1+ calls. 10xxx0+ calls would be screened and would be allowed only to IXCs that honored the screening class mark. I assume the FCC should tolerate blocking calls to IXCs not honoring the screening. The hotel's modifications would be minimal. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits Date: 24 Jan 91 20:12:37 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <16327@accuvax.nwu.edu> slr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve L. Rhoades) writes: >These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible. >There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about >once every sixty seconds. It's a series of about four different >tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each. How did you determine that they were in the 10-20 khz range? I suspect anything higher than 3.4 khz originates on this side. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:24:38 -0500 From: Robert Virzi Subject: Re: Videos By Phone In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). I called Explore Technology and they sent me out a fairly uniformative fax. They *do* claim to be able to send a two hour movie in fifteen seconds, but they are unclear as to the technology involved. They seem to be claiming this rate is possible over fiber, coax, and satellite links, not twisted pair. The technology does not use "cassette catridges", so some other form of local storage is required. They mention something called an "Instant Video Reciever", so the download is not to tape format. Some speculations. They are using compression technology and possibly (as some folks around here believe) a board set that allows storage and decompression. They are not very willing to give information without a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently they have legal staff. If anyone else wants to try, the phone number and address of the company is: Explore Technology Inc 7950 E. Acoma Dr. Suite 211 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 991-3224 Apparently the techies there are Richard Lang and Peter Spiess, among others. If anyone else finds out more about what it is they do, please keep me posted eitehr through the net or email. Bob Virzi rv01@gte.com ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 25 08:42:16 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" I have a two-year old message sent out to AT&T sales regarding the proper termination for analog data lines. According to this message, "The JM8 is intended to be the standard termination for analog data services." I've also heard the JM8 described as an 'eight-pin mini-modular jack'. An accompanying list shows all the RBOCs accepting specification of "JM8" or "8MMJ". Some of the other independents - Centel, GTE, and Southern New England Tel - were still using the 42A Connect Block. This is apparently an older standard, and since the message is so old, they may well have changed since then. As a telemarketing type, I don't get to go out and see my customers. (They're mostly 500-600 miles away!) But I'm told that Bell South installers usually terminate analog dedicated circuits in a device called a 'Teleport', which provides the JM8 as well as some other options. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker, GA | 800-241-4285 | AT&T Mail !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 08:41:00 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 25-Jan-1991 1110" Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order I don't think there's anything ironic about telecom professionals being blown up in our first attacks on Bagdad. Telecommunications, railroads, police and fire departments are all civilian staffed organizations that are an integral part of a country's infrastructure. This infrastructure is the first target of an attack. Rather than being ironic, I'd consider it to be almost a "compliment" to be part of a profession that is so important to a nation's security. People working in high profile locations are doubtlessly aware that they are at greater risk of attack than other locations. Believe me, living less than a mile from the AT&T network operations center, I know full well that there are several Soviet warheads aimed at me all the time! I don't really think this is an appropriate place to start or continue any kind of discussion of the MERITS of attacking any particular country, but I certainly accept the idea that if you're going to attack and win, you do things like target telephone switching centers and microwave towers. ljj ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: 25 Jan 91 17:35:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16377@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) writes: > To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues > or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going > statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a > national level? In New Jersey, for reasons never explained to me, the 7% state sales tax did not apply to telephones. As of three years ago, it suddenly did. The state justified taxing telephones by stating that the revenue derived from this tax would finance the state-wide implementation of E911 service. Like the Massachusetts directory assistance charge, this causes all telephone users (really, all telephone owners) to subsidize the emergency service. Is this fair? A visitor from out of state who never bought a telephone in New Jersey may still call 911 from a public telephone in the state. But somehow, I prefer not to have to worry about payment (finding coins, etc) in a time of emergency. Directory assistance is (and was already) charged for, so that's going somewhere else. 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: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 24 Jan 91 21:02:51 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob >Sherman) writes: >> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. >Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? >I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. My understanding is that Arnett was specifically exempted from the expulsion. The Iraqis are not as dumb as we would like to think, and this is ample evidence of that. Whereas there was no possibility of amply censoring *all* the news stories going out on *all* the news services while everyone was there, it's very easy for them to censor *one* reporter - who just happens to work for the news service that everyone in the world - including the BBC has been relying on through the crisis. (It was strange to hear the Beeb playing tapes of Shaw, Arnett, and Holliman through the first couple days of the war. On the other hand, I was able to hear the BBC even without my shortwave set through our local NPR affiliate, who broadcast BBC World Service instead of the usual classical music.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? Date: 25 Jan 91 01:38:14 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <16229@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war, >connections here appear to be moving smoothly. What experiences did >you have in other places? I imagine that here at Boeing our leased lines were probably tied up all over the metro area, but that happens every time it snows :^). >On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >with news? I just fingered vms.huji.ac.il, a VAX at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; it responded promptly with the following: [128.139.4.3] Friday, January 25, 1991 3:30AM-GMT Up 10 03:52:57 4+4 Jobs Load ave 3.04 3.02 3.06 User Personal Name Job Subsys Idle TTY Console Location DEKEL Avishai Dekel 204001DB *DCL* 1:49.nty26 TCP: galaxy.huji.ac. SERAN Eran Megido 20402D7C BMAIL nty1 TCP: ls2.huji.ac.il SIMON Simon Shickman 20400144 *DCL* 6:41.nty13 TCP: horizon.huji.ac TZVI1 Tsvi Kidron 204006B7 *DCL* 9:40.nty8 TCP: carmel.cc.huji. Life seems to be going on in Jerusalem... Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough time this past week. Are sites there still connected? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Edgardo Richards Subject: Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 17:46:41 CAM I've not been able to get information on voice-image phones. I've heard that Mitsubishi manufactures something like that. I would like to know about technical features, behaviour, limitations, dealers, prices. Please write to : uunet!huracan!richards Edgardo Richards Encargado de Informacion Confederacion Universitaria Centroamericana San Jose Costa Rica Thanks in advance ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #67 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27564; 27 Jan 91 5:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07538; 27 Jan 91 3:57 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04513; 27 Jan 91 2:52 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:33:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #68 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270233.ab18692@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 02:33:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call Answer Detection Unit [Barton F. Bruce] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Ed Greenberg] Re: Japanese Payphones [Lars Poulsen] Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Roger Fajman] MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity [Dan Herrick] Re: Charging for 911 [Steve Thornton] AT&T 5000 Series Answering Machines Are Superb! [Randy Borow] Re: Videos by Phone [Dennis Pratt] Re: Videos by Phone [Heath Roberts] USOC Code Letters [John R. Levine] Israel Connectivity Status [Richard Budd] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Call Answer Detection Unit Date: 27 Jan 91 06:51:37 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. The lack of answer supervision being passed back to the subscriber has long been a problem especially in the lodging industry. People checking out often find they are charged for unanswered calls and were not charged for brief calls. At least three companies now are marketing hardware that listens to the line and tries to determine when the call was answered. Some have gotten quite clever, and score quite well even on international calls and on calls to DID PBXes with non standard ring-back tone, etc. They can capture the SMDR record, strip its 'time', match the number dialed with what they capture watching just the actual trunks, and produce their own version of the SMDR record with correct time for the existing call accounting system to price and post to a hotel guests account. Not cheap, but they are selling well to LARGE hotels. Payback thru catching short calls frequent travelers are skilled at making can pay for the system in a few months. At smaller properties, and where there is less cheating, they may NEVER pay for themselves. Hopefully the phone companies will get around to offering answer supervision as a service one of these years. Many switches like the Mitel SX200Ds that are popular in the lodging industry can detect reverse battery on the trunks and use it as answer supervision for SMDR call timing purposes. I can BUY an SX200D for about the price of one the smaller of these add on units, so I think they are quite overpriced. If you need info, the literature I am looking at is from: Gemini Telemanagement Systems 1000 Elwell Court Palo Alto CA 94303 415.967.4610 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:56 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order Steve Mitchell writes: > I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the > people of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the > conflict may have been civilian professionals like you and I. The > contradictions in the philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of > their goals and their means, abound. You know, there isn't much humanitarian about a war. It is sobering, however, to realize that the telephone operators are as much at risk as the soldiers. As a technical person, you may too live near "ground zero." I live and work within ten miles of Moffett Naval Air Station -- in the heard of Silicon Valley. I grew up going to school across the street from Grumman Aerospace in Bethpage, New York. If "the big one comes" and thank the deity that's less likely these days, I have no illusions about whether I live in a target area. On the other hand, if it is suggested that we not take out the telephone exchange because there are civilian technicians working there, then we have bowed to the Human Shield concept and our entire operation is now held hostage. [Moderator's Note: Telephone employees have been in the middle of these things before and simply tried to carry on the best they could. There have been local and national emergencies which greatly taxed the ability of telecom people to get the job done ... yet they stuck with it. Historical trivia: In the middle 1960's, protestors of the war in southeast Asia barricaded the Administration Building at the University of Chicago and forced the building to be closed for two days. The one exception was the telephone operators: they not only were permitted to enter and leave the building, but as a matter of their personal safety were escorted in and out by the protestors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 20:28:57 GMT In article <16384@accuvax.nwu.edu> wolfson@mot.com (Steve Wolfson) writes: >[An article in Business Week] mentioned that [prepaid telephone cards] >may become used for items other than payphones. Like everywhere else >there is talk of standardization of these cards and concerns that this >would create a new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit >within standard banking laws. I just read that the Danish telephone companies have started a project together with the Visa/EuroCard clearinghouse to define a "smart" debit card to replace coins. This card would be prepaid with $50 to $100 and be used for things like telephones, bus fares, street hotdog vendors etc. Unlike existing debit cards, which may only be issued to persons age 18 and up, these would have no age restrictions. I suspect in a couple of years, every child will wear one around their neck. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 17:25:17 EST Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues I too was a customer of SBS when MCI took it over. I was somewhat concerned because we had previously switched to SBS from MCI due to poor line quality. This turned out not to be a problem because MCI had sufficiently improved their line quality in the meantime that we did not notice any difference on our voice calls. The problem that I did have is that this this was in the days before equal access became available in our neighborhood and MCI wanted us to dial a regular local number instead of 950-1088 (the SBS number). Due to our class of local service, this turned a free local call into one that cost nine cents. By complaining enough I got them to keep us on 950-1088 until equal access became available, a matter of a few months. The Around Town feature on the MCI calling card was available then, but it made dialing more complicated. As I recall, SBS took the account number first, so it could all be put on one button on our memory phone. The phone was able to wait for the second dial tone. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 91 00:40:00 EDT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) writes: >Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the >system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has >convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 >users, pay for this system. If they are going to price directory service out of reach, someone should offer a $0.40 per minute (or maybe .50) 900 directory information service. It should be possible to base the operation in a state other than Massachusetts, thus staying out of the reach of the Massachusetts regulators, and offer nationwide directory service, again staying out of the reach of Massachusetts regulators, but advertise more heavily in Massachusetts to get it started. It would require cutting a deal with the operators of that data base accessible through COMPUSERV that provides all the directories of the US online. Directory service prices from the various telephone companies are going up. It should be possible to start this service in a kitchen with one operator serving one phone line. As the demand increases, add servers. Thus, most of the up-front expenses are initial advertising. Start with a daily ad in the Boston Globe, one column inch. Pyramid it from there. Anyone want to see if we can make this work? dan herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor, Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com [Moderator's Note: You'd have to price it much higher. If you were using CIS, they get regular connect rates plus 25 cents per minute surcharge for that service. You'd pay 30 cents or more to the provider of the 900 line. The similar service doing reverse lookups is getting about $1.50 per minute I think. No one would pay that much for your service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:50:36 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Charging for 911 I don't know about your area, but here in Boston, *all* calls requesting police assistance, even non-emergencies, must go to 911. If you try to call the cops on your neighbors' loud party, the station will tell you to call 911. A $5 or $10 charge would effectively cut off police access except in the most dire emergencies. Also, how would you call 911 from a pay phone? Forget it, that dog won't hunt (to quote our new governor). steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Sun Jan 27 00:37:07 CST 1991 Subject: AT&T 5000 Series Cordless Phones are Superb! Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb! I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is also a great buy. It has a speakerphone (one of the best on the market), as well as a dial pad on the base (good idead if you misplaced the handset). It has ten channel security, intercom, extra base for the handset, etc. While the $249 retail price is kinda high, I'd suggest getting ahold of an AT&T employee who can get one for you as a "gift" at a substantial discount. By the way, Ben, you could always call AT&T at 1-800-555-8111 and ask about home delivery and other personal phone equipment stuff. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: Dennis Pratt Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 15:16:55 EST In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver > the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was > demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas ... > technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations I went to the Consumer Electronics Show. I passed by the Explore booth, but did not notice their system. The Winter CES Official Directory does not list their "Instant Video Receiver" or their "Instant Video Transceiver" products as part of their product line. A review of all the seven daily trade magazines that wrote about many of the highlights of the show and that were distributed free at the show does not mention Explore or its outstanding achievements at all. Explore's press release has relatively little information. Instead it is filled with adjectives such as "unprecendented", "revolutionary", "graduated from science fiction to world of today", "like something born of the 25th-century technology protrayed by the television series 'Star Trek'", "significant benefits", blah, blah, blah. They contend their 'technology' will enable video on demand. They also talk about their "*patented* Instant Video system" yet will not talk without non-disclosure. Their speed contention is that "an IVR connected to a *high-capacity* transmission line using Instant Video technology would receive a two-hour motion picture in approximately 15 seconds." My guess is that all we have here is a typical video compression algorithm hidden by a bunch of sales hype and exaggerated by fiber. Their number, if you want to confirm this, is 602-991-3224. Richard Lang is "CEO". If they aren't just hyping, I'll buy their stock for sure. Dennis Pratt Disclaimer: My company doesn't know about any of this ever. ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:30:44 GMT In article <16392@accuvax.nwu.edu> esupg@cu.warwick.ac.uk (barj) writes: >> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone >> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. >If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones. >And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-) >The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate >of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market >place by 1995. Full motion video takes about ten to fifteen megabits per second of bandwidth. Northern Telecom has 2.4Gb and 4.8Gb units on the market, and higher-rate units working that have to be field-packaged (I can't say any more specifics). This kind of system (selectable video program) has been demonstrated by Northern Telecom at a retirement community in Florida, and is part of Fiberworld. It does require fiber optic cable to the customer premises, and right now such service probably wouldn't be allowed by regulatory agencies, but it is coming. At least technically. The service the writer above mentioned is probably a movie-ordering system. You call a number to see a given movie, the cable TV company gets your number, maps it to the appropriate video box number, and tells your decoder to let you watch the movie. The difference is that your LEC is NOT providing the video, only subscriber information to the cable franchise. This has been tariffed in a few states already. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: USOC Code Letters Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 27 Jan 91 00:35:16 EST (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16373@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M > jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences; As far as I can tell, the letter describes the physical mounting of the jack and is unrelated to the wiring. According to my old Armiger catalog, the letters are: C Connecting block on baseboard or in mounting box W Wall mounted set (e.g. wall phones which snap on to two pins on the mounting plate) M Multiple arrangements with up to 8 blocks X Anything else, typically physically the same as C S Single connector block, I suppose for arrangements where it is typical to have multiples. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 21:46 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Hank Nussbacher writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #59 >Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS - >ahead of schedule. This links into TAT8. The fiber optic cable is a >joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus, >Italy as well as others. I'm curious whether Egypt, Turkey, or Syria are among the Mediterranean countries included in the AMOS fiber optic venture considering the strained relations between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus and the belligerent state of affairs between Syria and Israel. Of course, it could be possible. I just finished explaining to someone about an Iranian student who receives his news from Israeli radio. Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others - klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914)578-3764 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #68 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29454; 27 Jan 91 6:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15711; 27 Jan 91 5:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07538; 27 Jan 91 3:58 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 3:47:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #69 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270347.ab02359@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 03:47:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 69 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes [Douglas Scott Reuben] Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database [Steve Forrette] Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Donald E. Kimberlin] Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Jeff Sicherman] CNN Coverage in Baghdad [Richard Budd] Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding [Ole J. Jacobsen] Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:16 EST Here's what I know about programming Audiovox CMT400, 405, 450, 550, 605 and BC-40/BC-45 phones. The instructions may also work on other models, as all Audiovox (and perhaps other brands?) phones seem to follow the same procedure. If anyone saw my last posting on this a while back, this list is more or less complete (which my last one was not), so this should supercede any previous postings on the subject by me. Without further delay, here's how to program the phone: 1. Turn on the phone. 2. CLEAR out the display (hit CLR) 3. If it has never been programmed, you LOCK code is "000". 4. Enter your LOCK code (usually last 3 digits of your mobile number). 5. Enter FUNC, then "#", and then "1". You should now be in program mode. You will see the first three digits of your phone number as display item #1. (Thus, if your number is 555-1212, you will see something like: "C1 555". C1 is the item number.) Here's a table of the different locations: 1. FIRST 3 digits of phone number 3 digits 2. LAST 4 digits of phone number 4 digits 3. LOCK Code 3 digits 4. Area Code 3 digits 5. Home Area System ID 5 dig.,usually "00xxx" 6. Horn Alert (0=disable, 1=enable) 1 digit (0/1) 7. Hands-Free Speakerphone (0=disable, 1=en.) 1 digit (0/1) 8. End-to-end signalling (0=off, 1=on) 1 digit (0/1) 9. Repertory Mark (0=ff, 1=on) 1 digit (0/1) 10.Group ID Mark 2 digits 11.Access Overload Class 2 digits 12.Station Class Mark * 5 digits 13.Local Use Mark (allow local calls only?) 1 digit (0/1) 14.MIN Mark 1 digit (0/1) 15. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID) ....... 16. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID) ....... 17. Function Mark: 3 digits a. No functions: 0 0 0 b. Preferred System Lock 0 0 1 c. Automatic Lock * 0 0 2 d. Call Timer Beep * 0 0 4 e. Home / Roam inhibit 0 0 8 f. Automatic Cell-Site Redial 0 1 6 18. Reserved for future use ....... 19. Reserved for future use ....... 20. Inhibit SYS-ID (IE, block calls in SYS ID#) 5 digits (ie, SYS ID, 00xxx) 21. Horn Alert Turn-Off Timer * (01-31 hours) 2 digits 22. EMR Turn-Off timer * (01-31 hours) 2 digits 23. Reserved for future use ........ 24. Call-Timer Reset code (just use LOCK code) 3 digits 25. Reserved for future use ........ 26. Depends on all other settings, not alterable by user. * = For CMT-550 and CMT-605 only, these features are not available (as far as I know) on earlier models. You can "move" back and forth between items by pressing the "*" or the "#" keys. After you ALTER any item, make sure you press the STORE (STO) key. This will store your new entry into permanent memory. You must do this even though your new entry shows in the item line; if not, the previous entry will remain once you re-start your phone. When you have STOred all the new items, and wish to end the programming session, pres: FUNC and SND to write the data into the phone (NAM). After this, press FUNC and CLR to re-start the phone. You may also just power it down and then turn it on again. Your phone will now have the new values which you have programmed in. If you decide you don't wish to change the info after all, just press FUNC and CLR (or turn it off/on) without pressing FUNC SND first. I've found this pretty easy to do, and I manage to change from one system to another in about 20 seconds. You really don't have to look at EVERYTHING. All you need to do is enter a new phone number, and that's it. The System ID code is NOT SENT OUT, no matter what some paranoid cell co. may say. Thus, enter the program mode, change locations #1, #2 and #4 (press "#" or STO to skip over #3, your lock code, unless you want to change that), press FUNC and SND, and then FUNC CLR, and you are set! (Note: if you change from the "A" system to the "B" system, or the other way around, you will have to change the SYS ID code, OR use your A/B switch to get from one system to the other. This is because the phone "knows" to look for either the "A" or "B" system first by whether your SYS ID code is ODD or EVEN. (A systems = ODD, B systems = EVEN, so Metro Mobile, the "A" in CT is 00119, while SNET, the "B" in CT, is 00088.) I've found that it is even useful to change the SYS ID code while roaming, to the roaming city's code, so that I will KNOW when I am using some other nearby system and thus will not incur extra daily charges. (... in addition to the one I am already paying for roaming. So let's say I went to Allentown, PA; I would set my SYS ID to be 00103. Thus, while I am in the Allentown system, the ROAM light would be off. As I moved to the Metrophone/Philadelphia system, the ROAM light would come on, telling me that if I make any additional calls, I will pay another roamer surcharge since I am in a new system. Very useful if you don't know the exact coverage of a system in an area.) Guess that's it. If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll see if I can help. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:05 GMT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database CAMBRIDGE, MA (JAN. 23) - Lotus Development Corp. and Equifax Inc. Wednesday announced the cancellation of Lotus MarketPlace: Households, a CD-ROM database product of names, addresses, and marketing information on 120 million U.S. consumers originally scheduled for shipment in March. The companies said the decision to cancel the product came after an assessment of the public concerns and misunderstanding of the product, and the substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully address consumer privacy issues. Lotus also announced that it will discontinue shipment of Lotus MarketPlace:Business, a database of information on seven million U.S. businesses that began shipping in October, 1990. "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we believe that the actual data content and controls built into the product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief executive officer. "After examining all of the issues we have decided that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider." "Technology is radically changing the way we work and, more importantly, how we use information," said Manzi. "Balancing the advantages of easier access to information with the individual's right to privacy is only the first of many new issues our industry will grapple with in the coming years." C.B. (Jack) Rogers, Jr., president and chief executive officer of Equifax, which provides the data in MarketPlace, said: "Equifax has made several key investments in consumer-oriented initiatives, including our sponsorship of a national survey of consumer attitudes on privacy. The major survey finding was that consumers are willing to make trade-offs for the use of their personal information when they clearly understand the benefits. Despite our significant consumer education efforts, consumer misperceptions about this new product offered through this distribution channel persist." In developing Lotus MarketPlace: Households, Lotus and Equifax implemented a number of privacy-related controls that exceeded traditional direct- marketing industry practices. These practices were the result of extensive research of the consumer privacy issue prior to product development, including testing the product concept with several consumer focus groups and counsel from a nationally recognized consumer-privacy expert. The practices included: o Limiting the data. Specifically excluded from the product were telephone numbers and individual personal data such as actual income, credit data, and purchase history; o Offering the data only to legitimate businesses, through a controlled purchase process; o Educating and advising users about the proper legal and ethical responsibilities for list usage; and o Providing several Lotus- and Equifax-funded options for consumers to have their names removed from the database. "We developed MarketPlace in response to a perceived need and real market opportunity. MarketPlace is an innovative tool for small businesses, who are often shut out of sophisticated direct marketing because of its cost or complexity," said Manzi. "The market for tools like MarketPlace is a viable one. At the same time, the product is not part of our core business, and Lotus would be ill-served by a prolonged battle over consumer privacy." Rogers added: "Equifax is a technology leader and, equally important, a pioneer in the area of consumer privacy protection in the information industry. While we remain committed to using the most sophisticated technology available, we are equally committed to maintaining the delicate balance between legitimate information needs of business and consumers' privacy concerns." The Lotus MarketPlace product family was a suite of CD-ROM (compact-disc, read-only memory) database tools that used the Apple Macintosh personal computer to make it easy for businesses to find new customers. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:59 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts A post and some comments on here remark about tones of the region of 10 Khz and up are heard or radio broadcasts of Mideast dial-up connections. It is utterly impossible for these to be coming from the source, as any dial connection passes through at least one and probably several sets of channel bank filters and digital carrier channels that cannot pass anything beyond 4 Khz, most often no more than 3 Khz. However, high-pitched noises and crosstalk on local telephone cable pairs are often and readily passed by broadcast equipment and transmitters. AM stations in the US can often pass 12 Khz, and most can pass 10 Khz, while FMs are regulatorily required to pass 15 Khz. Experienced broadcasters avoid this by placing their own low-pass filter in the dial line output to air so as to avoid these problems. If the source of what is being broadcast was taken from an inter- national shortwave broadcast, high-pitched noises and whistles caused by adjacent channel transmissions on the High Frequency bands are rather common. These could likewise be filtered out at the station, but frequently the news people grab such material and air it in a rush without any prepping for air. I really suspect the latter is more often what people hear now- adays. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:49:42 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm An article in the local newspaper (Orange County Register, California) mentioned that many families with relatives deployed to the middle east for operation Desert Storm/Shield have been experiencing humongous phone bills due to the needs and desires to stay in contact with loved ones. The phone companies, both local and long Distance (AT&T, any others ?) are arranging payment plans and have no intention of cutting off service but have said that tariffs forbid them from making the services available at special prices or from giving them away. (How is the Desert Fax service available from AT&T phone centers excluded from this?). I guess the government can't allow use of military lines for this purpose, due to operational considerations but what about government lines that are largely idle on weekends and at night? Do these have sufficient international capacity and would it be legal for them to be used in this manner with some screening? Also seems like there ought to be a way for some large volume user/aggregator with excess capacity to resell through some non-profit operation arranged for this purpose. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} this past week mentioned a woman living here in Chicago whose son is in the Marines in the middle east. She got a bill from AT&T for $213 recently due to collect calls from her son. The problem is, she lives in a Chicago Housing Authority building and her sole income is $169 monthly from Public Aid. Several Chicagoans, upon reading the story in the newspaper immediatly sent checks to IBT to pay the lady's bill for her ... The excess funds are now being held by IBT and will be applied to others in similar straits as a result of a family member or loved one being 'over there'. I think it would be a very generous act if members of this net would take charge of establishing such a trust fund in their own community to be administered by a local, recognized charity in cooperation with the telco and an OCC. We've seen the power of this net in other ways in the recent past; how about a concerted effort to make international long distance affordable to our troops and their families for the duration of the conflict? The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the 'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone then you are the customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 00.10.17 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: CNN Coverage in Baghdad Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY As of 8:00 AM EST, January 25, 1991, Peter Arnett of CNN was still in Baghdad and is the only Western reporter still in Iraq. Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others- klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 11:02:59 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding I am happy to report a definite "yes you can do it" to a question that I have been wondering about for some time. Special thanks to Pete Ahrens of Pac*Bell for clarifying this. I have two lines, A and B, in "circular hunt" or "series completion". This means that if you call A and it is busy, B will ring. If you call B and it is busy, A will ring. So far, pretty basic stuff. I decided to add a third line C, which would be my "spillover" and allow me to receive a third call placed to either A or B when *both* were busy. This is accomplished quite readily by adding "busy call forwarding" to both A and B pointing to C. It turns out that the hunting is attempted *before* busy call forwarding is activated, and so the two services work nicely in conjunction. Another solution would have been to put A, B and C all in circular hunt, but the result would not have been quite the same, as a call to B would hunt to C before hunting to A. Thought you'd like to know. (And Higdon said it could not be done. :-) Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:44:17 CST A special mailing will follow this issue of the Digest. William Degnan now is editing a telecom calendar of events, and as new issues of the calendar are released they will be distributed here in the Digest and in comp.dcom.telecom. The first calendar, covering several important events in 1991 is available now. I'm sorry I did not have it available earlier this month. You should send comments, corrections and other information direct to Mr. Degnan at the address in the article. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #69 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00711; 27 Jan 91 7:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26834; 27 Jan 91 6:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15711; 27 Jan 91 5:03 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 4:14:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270414.ab31288@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Dear Readers, This is the first in what I hope will be frequent updates to a Telecom Calendar of Events. I've wanted something like this in the Digest for some time now, but simply was too busy to work on it. Please send comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort of thing useful and would like to see it here more often. PAT Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:24:12 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Telecom Calendar 1991 in Telecom v 0.03 This is our compilation of events calendars for various aspects of the telecommunications industry. To have your activity listed, send your request to: Private Line, Calendar Editor, P.O. Drawer 9530, Austin, TX 78766-9530, or EMAIL to WDEGNAN@ATTMAIL.COM, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG. ======================================================================= ** 1991 ** ======================================================================= January ======= Jan 10-13 Winter Consumer Electronics Show Las Vegas 202 457-4919 Jan 13-16 Pacific Telecommunications Conference Sheraton Waikiki Honolulu, HI 808 941-3789 Jan 14-17 Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport Tampa, FL 813 974-2695 Jan 14-17 OPASTCO Winter Convention Arizona Biltmore Phoenix, AZ Tampa, Fla. Jan 16-18 Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Convention Center San Diego, CA 202 785-0081 Jan 21-24 MECOM 91 Bahrain 201 652-7070 Jan 22-23 Infotext '91 Interactive Telephone Marketing Tropicana Hotel Las Vegas, NV 714 493-2434 Jan 22-25 Eurocomm '91 International Telecom/Datacomm show RAI Exhibition Centre Europaplein Amsterdam The Netherlands 616 933-9055 Jan 28-31 Network Computing Forum '91 Grand Hyatt Washington, DC 508 879-6700 Jan 28-31 Communications Networks '91 Convention Center Washington, DC 508 879-6700 Jan 29-31 MexCom '91 Mexico City Mexico 305 442-4741 February ======== Feb 4-5 Making Incoming Call Centers Pay Off Business Communications Review Embassy Suites Orlando, FL 708 986-1432 Feb 4-6 Western Communications Forum Hyatt Regency Phoenix, AZ National Engineering Consortium 312 938-3500 Feb 5-8 ONLINE '91 Congress-Centrum-Hamburg Hamburg, W. Germany +49 (2051) 23071 Feb 6-8 Understanding Voice Response: Applications, Technology, and Implementation Business Communications Review Embassy Suites Orlando, FL 708 986-1432 Feb 10-14 National Telephone Cooperative Association San Diego Marriott and Marina San Diego, CA 202 298-2300 Feb 11-14 Networld '91 No location set Boston, MA 800 444-4698 Feb 12-13 Talking Newspapers: Voice Information Services Opportunities Hyatt/Airport Atlanta, GA The Audiotext Group 215 297-1000 Feb 12-14 Mobile Data World Hyatt Regency Capitol Washington, DC 212 373-1930 Feb 12-15 COMEXPO Mexico New Exhibition Center Mexico City, Mexico 703 527-8000 Feb 17-19 Canadian Independent Telephone Association Seminar and Showcase Toronto Canada 416 259-2053 Feb 17-20 California Assn. Annual convention Hyatt Hotel Monterey, CA 916 922-3307 Feb 18-22 Optical Fiber Comm '91 Convention Center San Diego, CA 202 223-8130 Feb 25-27 ComConn '91 "Telecommuting -- Beating traffic and the Competition" Town & Country Hotel San Diego, CA 415 637-2300 Feb 26-28 Computer & InfoAsia '91 Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok, Thailand 662-260-7109 Feb 27-Mar 2 Com Technology Indonesia '91 Jakarta Fair Grounds Jakarta, Indonesia 301 656-2942 Feb 28-29 OPASTCO Leglislative & Regulatory Conf. Quality Inn on Capitol Hill Washington, DC 202 659-5990 March ===== Mar 3-6 Entelec George R. Brown Convention Center and Hyatt Regency Houston, TX 214 235-1761 Mar 3-6 Minnesota Telephone Convention Radisson South Hotel Bloomington, MN 612 291-7311 Mar 5-7 PETE '91 Orange County Expo. Ctr. Costa Mesa, CA 800 525-7383 Mar 5-8 Communications '91 No location set Sidney, Australia +44 (1) 487-5831 Mar 10-13 Western Rural Tel. Assn. Annual Meeting Fess Parker Red Lion Santa Barbara, CA 707 578-5580 Mar 12-15 Carolina-Virginias Tel. Member. Assn. Marriot Raleigh, NC 919 592-5751 Mar 13-20 CeBIT Hannover Germany 404 239-9494 Mar 18-19 OPASTCO Spring Workshop Houstonian Houston, TX 202 659-5990 Mar 18-21 Supercomm '91 George R. Brown Convention Center Houston, TX 312 782-8597 Mar 19-21 Fiber Perspectives '91 George R. Brown Convention Center Houston, TX 312 782-8597 Mar 21-22 Emerging Opportunities for Voice Enhanced Print Products in Europe Inter-Continental Hotel London IBT Technical Services/The Audiotext Group 609 466-0900 Mar 24-26 American Telemarketing Spring Conf. Hyatt Regency Washington Washington, DC 800 441-3334 Mar 24-27 Nat'l Cable TV Assn. (NCTA) Convention Center New Orleans, LA 202 775-3550 Mar 24-27 AM/FM Conference Marriott Hotel & Marina San Diego, CA 303 337-0513 Mar 25-28 Interface '91 World Congress Center Atlanta, GA 617 449-6600 Mar 25-29 ISFOC (Int'l Soviet Fiber Optics Conf.) Bontch-Bruevich Institute Leningrad, USSR 800 323-1088 Mar 26-28 Int'l Mobile communications Expo Convention Center Anaheim, CA 303 220-0600 Mar 27-30 International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications Windham Paradise Valley Resort Scottsdale, AZ 602 862-5200 April ===== Apr 1-3 DMA PRofitable and Effective Use of the Telephone: Outbound and Inbound Palmer House Chicago, IL 212 768-7277 x486 Apr 1-3 SC Telephone Assn. Spring Convention Radisson Resort Hotel North Myrtle Beach, SC 803 252-4505 Apr 2-5 Communications Tokyo '91 Tokyo Japan 301 986-7800 Apr 2-5 National Fiber Optic Engineer's Conference Opryland Hotel Nashville, TN 205 977-7657 Apr 5-9 ACUTA Spring Seminar Hyatt Regency Waikiki Honolulu, HI 606 252-2882 Apr 8-10 Test '91 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 409 845-6575 Apr 9-12 East Eurocomm '91 Budapest Hungary 3388988 (Singapore) Apr 10-11 North Dakota Tel. Assn. Annual Mtg. International Inc. Minot, ND 701 223-6022 Apr 10-12 Voice '91 Convention Center Anaheim, CA 713 974-6637 Apr 21-May 1 Eastern Communications Forum Crystal Gateway Mariott Washington, DC National Engineering Consortium 312 938-3500 Apr 22-24 Network Management Solution World Trade Center Boston, MA 800 225-4698 Apr 22-26 NTCA Legislative Conference Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Washington, DC 202 298-2300 Apr 22-27 IT '91 Paris-Nord Villepinte Paris, France 312 565-4340 Apr 23-24 Suppliers Showcase (CA Assoc.) Radisson Sacremento, CA 916 922-4407 Apr 23-24 Tele-Marketplace, Telecom Canada Metro Toronto Convention Centre Toronto, Ont. Canada 416 691-6526 Apr 23-26 ISSLS No location set Amsternam, Netherlands +31(35)871466 Apr 23-26 Computer '91 Palais de Beaulieu Lausanna, Switzerland +41(21)451111 Apr 25-26 InterCom '91 Omni Hotel Miami, FL 305 446-5150 Apr 25-26 IFABO/Programma Messegalande Vienna, Austria +43(222)93145240 Apr 25-27 Mobile Comm North America Convention Center Toronto, Canada 202 267-4770 Apr 26-29 East Eurocomm '91 International Fair Centre Budapest, Hungary +65-3388998 Apr 29-May 1 ECF '91 Marriott Crystal Gateway Washington, DC 312 938-3500 Apr 29-May 2 CICC '91 Westin Copley Place Boston, MA 808 879-9128 May === May 3-5 Spring STC Conference No location set Chicago, IL 800 782-7670 May 7-9 Canadian Utility Equipment Show Fargo Holiday Inn Fargo, ND 701 223-6022 May 7-9 TEXPO '91 Moscone Center San Francisco, CA 800 448-3976 May 7-10 OITA Annual Meeting Rippling River Resort Welches, OR 503 581-7430 May 13-15 Tel. Assn. of Michigan Convention Radisson Resort Ypsilanti, MI 517 482-4166 May 14-16 Canadian Utility Equipment Show Metro East Trade Centre Pickering, Ont. Canada 503 581-7430 May 15-19 Telecommex Asia 1991 Trade Training Center Metro Manila, Phillippines +65-5343588 May 19-22 WITA Annual The Inn at Semiahmoo Blaine, WA 206 352-5453 May 20-22 Telecom Developers '91 Hyat Regency - DFW Airport Texas Teleconnect Magazine 212 691-8515 May 20-23 COMDEX/Spring World Congress Center Atlanta, GA 617 449-6600 May 28-31 National Telecommunications Forecasting Conference (A Vision of Tomorrow's Reality) Westin Hotel at Copley Place Boston, MA New England Telephone 617 743-2234 June ==== Jun 2 ICA Anaheim Convention Center Anaheim, CA 214 233-3889 Jun 5-10 Expo Comm Moscow '91 Moscow USSR 301 986-7800 Jun 9-12 New York Telephone Association Sagamore Hotel Lake George, NY 518 462-6696 Jun 9-14 Caribbean Association of National Telecomm Organizations St. Thomas U.S. Virgin Islands Latcom Inc. 305 446-5150 Jun 16-Jul 1 Shanghai China 5463810 July ==== Jul 15-18 Comm Networks West '91 Moscone enter San Francisco, CA 800 225-4690 August ====== (none at this writing) September ========= Sep 9-12 Network 90's Conference and Exhibition San Francisco, CA Pac Bell/USTA/TIA 916 972-3737 Sep 24-26 TCA San Diego Convention Center San Diego, CA 818 967-9411 October ======= Oct 8-15 Geneva Switzerland 312 782-8597 for information November ======== (none at this writing) December ======== (none at this writing) Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14255; 27 Jan 91 17:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27108; 27 Jan 91 16:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09201; 27 Jan 91 15:11 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #70 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271440.ab22398@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig R. Watkins] Rental Cellular Phones [Larry Jones] Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Mark Earle] ISDN and Cellular [Jeff Sicherman] NEC P300 Programming [Bob Sherman] Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Donald E. Kimberlin] TX PUC Final Orders Update [William Degnan] Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [Joe Konstan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones Date: 26 Jan 91 00:07:44 EST Organization: HRB Systems I'm trying to describe generic programming characteristics of cellular phones. I'll list the various terms used by previous authors and try to describe the attributes. I'll use information from previous postings and literature that I've read. Mostly I'll be asking questions about holes in my understanding of how the attributes are used. The following contains information from telecom articles on programming various phones including: A) RS CT-301 from Rob Warnock on 20 Apr 90 (from the manual, I think) B) RS CT-201 from Dave Levenson on 29 Jul 90 (from the phone display, I think) C) Technophone MC-915-A from PAT on 15 Oct 90 (from the phone display) D) NEC P9100 from me (from the phone display) E) From Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89 as supplied by Jerry Durand . A) home system identification 5 digits B) ho id 5-digit C) AREA ID five digit number D) Home Area E) System Identification (SID) Code This is the five digit system id, or SID, of the home cellular system. See the file cellular.carrier.codes on telecom-archives. A) mobile number 10 digits B) phon ten-digit C) some ten digit number ten digit D) Phone No. E) Cell Telephone Number This is the actual ten digit telephone number, or MIN, the mobile identification number. MIN is made up of MIN1, the 24 bits which correspond to the seven digit telephone number and MIN2, the 10 bits which correspond to the three digit areacode (the encoding method is non-obvious). Sometimes people call this the "NAM." This is really the MIN. I think of all these parameters together as a "NAM." A) home paging channel 3 dig B) paging ch 4-digit C) IPCH initial paging channel D) First P-CH E) Initial Paging Channel This is the paging channel on which a phone starts scanning when it is "home." On the A side, this is typically 333 and scanning starts down. On the B side, this is typically 334 and starts up. The 333/334 is obviously the split between A and B on the old 666 channel system. First set of questions: Has anyone used anything other than 333 or 334? Under what conditions would a carrier use a different first paging channel? A) group identification 2 dig B) group id 2 digits C) GRP ID two digit group ID Mark D) G.I.Mark E) Group ID Mark This is a marker (a bit position, I believe) to designate which (MSB) bits in the system ID are used to identify a group of cellular systems (such as PacTel Cellular). (Pat, I believe in your article you mentioned that this had to do with letting the carrier know that you have 832 channels available. I believe that is the SCM parameter in the phone and not this. Do you concur?) [Moderator: I believe you are correct. Also, my Technophone MC-915-A always parks on 327, although it is programmed for and starts out at 333. PAT] I've read that home mobiles or mobiles roaming in the same group may use "Local Control" (see Local Control below). Is the group ID used for anything else? Can anyone comment on either current use or the proposed use of the group ID? A) local control option 1 or 0 B) locl opr 1 digit C) D) Local Use Yes/No E) Local Use bit I assume that this controls whether the mobile uses the "local control" information from the carrier. From what I have read, this info is specific to the local system. If this is the case, what does my phone do with it? How does it know? Anyone with more info on what local control may be used for? Mine is enabled in my phone. A) overload class 2 dig B) o-load class 2 digits C) O/LOAD CLASS two digit number D) ACCOLC E) Access Overload Class This is a four bit number to describe the access overload class of the telephone. I believe it is used to control overloading conditions on the reverse control channel. The carrier can prohibit classes from originating on the reverse control channel at various times. Do I have this concept right? Does anyone know the logistics behind assigning these classes to telephones? Do any carriers assign specific classes to specific groups of users (such as emergency personnel)? After starting these questions, I found a reference to ACCOLC: EIA TSB16-85 Assignment of Access Overload Classes in the Cellular Telecommunications Services. 6pp. However, I wasn't able to find this locally. I may have to order it. Has anyone seen it? A) B) C) EXp ? 0 or 1 D) MIN Mark E) MIN Mark bit Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2? If so, I thought that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone? A) access method 1 or 0 B) access 1 digit C) D) E) I'm not sure what this is? Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell us? This might have something to do with accessing the reverse control channel (just a wild guess). A) B) st class 2 digits C) D) E) Station Class Code I believe this is Station Class Mark (SCM), a four bit code in the form ABCD. A = 0 666 channels A = 1 832 channels B = 0 continuous transmission mode B = 1 discontinuous transmission mode (battery saver mode) CD = 00 high power CD = 01 medium power CD = 11 low power A) B) pref sys A or B C) D) Sys Select E) This seems fairly obvious. Most phones also had an [un]lock code and/or a security code which I omitted in this listing because I didn't find it very interesting. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: Larry Jones Subject: Rental Cellular Phones Date: 27 Jan 91 00:55:07 GMT Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati From the January 26 {Cincinnati Post}: Hotels and car-rental agencies that provide cellular telephones to customers soon will be able to get a quick peek at the dollar volume of calls made when the phones are returned at check-out time. Cincinnati Bell Information Systems (CBIS) by March will introduce a new product geared toward business travelers, conventioneers and other short-term cellular users. CIPHERS -- or Cellular Integrated Phone Rental System -- will allow telephone charges to be tallied immediately after the phone is returned so that the rental agencies don't have to bill the client later when its own bill arrives from the phone company. Hotels and car renters will, in essence, be able to hand the customer an "instantaneous invoice," said Tony Tagliareni, CBIS market support manager. CIPHERS works by using a tiny computer chip inside the phone to record call data, rather than relying on information collected at the switch site. The chip can store data for up to 200 calls, more than enough capacity for the typical short-term user, who may spend 20 minutes per day on the phone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:23:57 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request Howard Pierpont (pierpont@crboss.enet.dec.com asks in general about putting six phones in a van. While I cannot suggest much in the "correct" antenna placement or RF issues, I do have some advice. We use CMT's with external modems. The "magic" is a box from Telular (they have an 800 number). This box is called a "celljack". It connects in place of (or in paralell with, depending on cabling desired) the regular hanset/cradel. You then have a regular RJ-11 jack to plug in "whatever". The Celljack provides dial tone when the attached device goes off hook. It will interpret tone or pulse dialing, and send the correct data stream to the CMT transceiver. It will drive 5 REN-1 loads. So far, I've tried it on several Marata, Mitsubish, and Panasonic fax's. NO problem at all. We principally use it at remote sites, so we can modem in to a remote data collection computer. Again, no problems of significance. One thing you will notice, is that on calling TO a modem connected to the Celljack, it takes a bit longer. You may need to increase your terminal emulator's "time out" paramater. On OUTGOING calls through the Celljack, the same problem may occur, since it may take up to 5-10 seconds for the cell side of the call to set up. Most modems or software have a register or paramater to handle this, so it is generally NOT a practical problem. Audio quailty is good (a plain old black desk phone sounds better than the regular cmt handset). I have successfully used an HST 9600 bps modem, to another HST, and gotten 1600 cps; have also used a telebit; and have called to Compuserve's ports, both "regular" and MNP. Also to various Unix boxes and dos-based bbs's, all with no problems. This is both fixed, and while someone else was driving with the vehicle in motion. There is another distributor, Cellular Solutions, who sell the Celljack. It does not work with *all* CMT's but the included list is representative of the more popular units. The cost is about $450. Oh -- it has extensive on board diags you enable with a switch. For instance, ring attached instrument, decode touch tones, verify pulse make/break ratios, etc. For the $ it makes a good general purpose piece of test gear. It can also be set up for ground or loop start, etc. Another unusual use of this product (which is the size, about, of the CMT transceiver unit -- we just double-sticky tape the Celljack to the CMT!) is to connect to a port on a PBX. Dial '7' to get the "special" circuit. Turns out the CMT, with a directional antenna, could reach across an very expensive toll zone. The per minute airtime is about 1/3 of the rate to call direct -- and it gets cheaper at night. The celljack seems to provide all the DC signalling the PBX (small Panasonic) wanted-the pbx belived it has a standard line on that port. Hope this helps! mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:46:25 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: ISDN and Cellular I realize this is kind of a vague question but ... What are the implications and complications for ISDN upon cellular service. It would seem to me that the bandwidth required would be a major problem. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: NEC P300 Programming Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:54:56 GMT If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300 handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass them along to me via e-mail or here on the net. Many Thanks!!! bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:57 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically In addition to MCI Mail automatically providing each E-Mail user an international Telex number based on their account number, in fairness to the competition, we should post that AT&T Mail does the same, as, I believe, does SprintMail. The difference will occur in what US international Telex carrier the numbers come from. That will make a difference in how the overseas Telex caller must dial to reach them. If on MCIMail, their number is on WUI. On ATTMail, it is FTCC Communications, while the former Easylink is via WUTCo. I do not know what carrier SprintMail's deal is with. Those who want to use this option (needed for receiving only; you can transmit to international Telex on all, even without a number) will want to check to find out how to instruct correspondents to call them. MCI Mail certainly is smartest about this. They publish the details in their instruction book. With the others, expect the incompetence we so often suffer. International Telex is unknown to most Americans including the "sales" and "customer service" people of too many locations. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:45:51 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: TX PUC Final Orders Update The following is quoted from the Final Orders Update, published by the PUC's Public Information Office: Public Utility Commission of Texas 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard - Suite 400N Austin, TX 78757 512/458-0100 FINAL ORDERS UPDATE January 9, 1991 Members of the Public Utility Commission of Texas met on January 9, 1991, to consider 14 dockets and one rulemaking. Final Orders were issued in 10 proceedings. All decisions were unanimous (3-0), except where shown. The name of the ALJ/examiner assigned to the case is shown in parentheses following the docket number. CONTESTED CASES "Docket No. 8387 (Robert Howell), Final Order, Petition of R.A. Hirsch against Swouthwestern Bell Telephone Company. "Commissioners adopted the Examiner's Report and amended Final Order, which recommends approval of a joint stipulation stetting the following terms by which bulletin board systems may qualify for a residential rate: (1) if the BBS is located in a residence, (2) the BBS does not operate for profit or otherwise solicit or accept compensation, and (3) the BBS uses no more than three local access telephone lines. A BBS is a host computer with software package that is linked with the telephone network via a modem. Other persons who also have computers equipped with modems may communicate and exchange information with the BBS. The disputed issue in this docket was whether BBSs located in residences should be billed as businesses." ### Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 11:11:40 PST From: Joe Konstan Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments I almost just bought the Panasonic 3910R (I think it had the "R" not sure) but found that all of the discount places around here (BEST, Circuit City, Good Guys etc. were out of them and didn't expect more in for a while). After long hassels with Circuit City I ended up with the AT&T 5500 instead (for only $120 plus tax!!) and I think it's great! Basic feature comparison: AT&T 5500 Panasonic 3910 10 Channel cordless 10 Channel cordless 9-number memory dialing 16 number memory dialing speakerphone in base speakerphone in base .... Basically, these are almost identical. The 5500 has very good sound quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs). There are hold buttons on both the base and extension, etc. The only drawback is that the extra cradle for the cordless unit doesn't have a charger built in -- so you do have to return it to the base at least weekly. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #70 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16136; 27 Jan 91 18:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06622; 27 Jan 91 17:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27108; 27 Jan 91 16:16 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #71 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271525.ab17169@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:09 CST Volume 11 : Issue 71 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [William Degnan] Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John Higdon] Re: Videos By Phone [Peter da Silva] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Telecom*USA [Steve M. Kile] MCI Masterphone [Lyle A. McGeoch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Date: 25 Jan 91 05:48:43 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16347@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tel@cdsdb1.att.com writes: > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a > box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into > ... > My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and > PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have > Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ tel@hound.ATT.COM 908-949-0428 ^^^^^^^^^ A user will now tell how the Bell System and FCC set this mess up. Arminger and others like Suttle are all licensed by YOUR company to produce such devices. You will find corresponding WE-xxx numbers for your products that they make with AA-xxx numbers and Suttle has SE-xxx ones, too. Arminger is heavier into data related special jacks then Suttle. Anyway, this has lots of history that I will partly skip, but the simple part of it is that modems are not supposed to hit the CO with a signal hotter than -12dbm. Originally modems all were from the phone company, and THEY set the xmit level internally with dip switches. When users were finally allowed to plug in modems, a way was devised to let the jack set the signal level. Any modem worth its salt today can receive signals that my bad ears can barely hear. But when this was planned, there was a scheme devised whereby the installing phone company could install a data jack that would program the transmit signal level for a modem with an external resistor the installer would select supposedly after determining the loop loss to the CO. That is your PROG switch position. Some modems were assumed to be too dumb to be programmed, and you could run with a fixed pad that killed some signal level for BOTH transmit and receive. They were assumed to xmit at -4dbm, and the pad would cut the level to what was needed. The transmit side of this was cut to 'protect' the network, but padding the receive side was/is totally STUPID. There is a third option the modems have and that is 'permissive' mode. It is assumed that there will be at least 3db loss on a CO line, and so any modem is 'permitted' to transmit at a fixed -9dbm (to hit the CO at no higher than -12dbm). Permissive mode is what all normal modems pluging into RJ11 jacks are using. I never saw a modem ordered or equipped for FLL (fixed loss loop) operation, but there were specs on how to do it. Some of the old modems came with instructions for the telco to set the levels internally, or you set them for 0 dbm internally and used a special cord for the external PROG or FLL or PERM jack setup. If you had loss set inside and externally you would have too much. Typically the adapter cord to make a programmable modem a FLL one included the 866 ohm resistor for -4dbm needed in FLL mode, and the adapter cord for permissive mode included the 5490 ohm resistor needed to transmit at -9dbm. The cord for programmable mode simply connected the resistor in the jack to the modem. Your jack with cord, etc is probably Arminger's AA-330A Universal Data Station Adapter. The center two wires from the RJ11 cord go to the center two of the eight-wire data jack, so any RJ11 modem plugged into this could as well be just plugged in without this. Pins 1 + 2 go to the internal PAD and then to incoming T + R via that switch when thrown to FLL position. The resistor for PROG mode is across 7 + 8. This adapter's resistor is set for -9dbm, and the unit effectively converts OLD FASHION FLL or PROG mode modems into PERmissive ones and is an FCC registered device (APZ9P9-67263-AD-N the Ren is 0.0B in PROG, and the PAD makes Ren = 2.5B in FLL mode). On telco installed data jacks, I have NEVER seen different resistors installed whether the jack is near the CO or miles from it. The installers always put in just one value. In the real world now, NO ONE needs this nonsense. If you have OLD modems that need this, maybe buy an eight-wire jack and stick your OWN resistor in and run in programmed mode set for -9dbm (i.e. run it in permissive mode). Certainly don't BUY this sort of over priced factory nonsense adapter. New modems will run in permissive mode and that is fine. Use RJ11 jacks. In some areas you seem to need to order a data jack just to get a data quality line. Then get an RJ45S (the programmable jack with out the FLL switch - but they may 'provide' it by giving you the universal model that HAS the switch). The RJ41S function DOES include the FLL Pad, and typically is provided by an AA-97A (1-9) (that 1-9 is for loop loss of 1 to 9 dbs - each number you order comes with a different resistor and pad) and nine different order numbers!, and costs about $18. The AA-97B only does RJ45S (PROG) function (no FLL switch) and comes with eight resistors (one order #) and costs about the same. Those two are the same size box, but a newer jack that looks like a fat RJ11, but also takes the eight wire plugs is the AA-97B1. It also comes with the kit of eight resistors (NO resistor is used for the highest loss setting) and costs about $8. The same jack bought as a generic JACK is under $4, and you can get the resistor for -9dbm xmit (the 3db loop loss resistor) for pennies elsewhere. Use 5,490 (or near that) ohms. If you are stuck with telco installed FLL switches, TAPE them into the PROG position. NEVER use FLL, it is a dumb and obsolete idea. Remember any normal (permissive) modem plugs into an RJ11, but also works fine in the eight-wire jacks but hardly needs them. History lesson: xmit level resistor loop loss range 0 (short) 12 or more db -1 150 ohm 11-12 -2 336 10-11 -3 562 9-10 -4 866 8-9 -5 1,240 7-8 -6 1,780 6-7 -7 2,520 5-6 -8 3,610 4-5 -9 5,490 3-4 -10 9,200 2-3 -11 19,800 1-2 -12 (open) 0-1 Personally, I get data lines in on RJ21X jacks mixed in with general phone lines. The 25 pairs there come out on the AMP connector and go to MY-OWN CO quality 3 electrode gas tube + diodes lightning protection (I like Porta System's Delta series, but NTI/Cook, AT&T, and Reliable all make this sort of thing), and then it goes to modular patch or 66 punch and then to internal voice or data or whatever we need on OUR wires. Modems plug into RJ11 jacks. Period. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 09:02:58 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" On Tom Lowe writes: > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are > given a device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is > a box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug > into the phone jack... > Armiger & Associates, Inc. Fort Worth Texas USA > Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9) Use as USOC RJ-41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, > RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules > My question is: What is this box, what does it do, You have answered your own questions. It is an AS-97A (1-9) [actually what you describe is an AA-97A (1-9)-RTC1]. It is for use as an RJ41S-M, etc. > and what do FLL and PROG stand for? Why Fixed Loop Loss or PROGrammable. > Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have no idea. Would they know if you _didn't_ ask them? Next time you can tell them that it is essentially the AA-97A-RTC connector, with the FLL/PROG switch located on the outside and a one foot, four-conductor line cord which is connected to the network side. The AA-97A-RTC is a data connecting block arrangement that includes an eight-position modular jack for the registered data connection and an eight-position series modular jack for a modular jack for a modular connection to other data interface equipment. See your modem manual for the manufacturer's recommendation for FLL vs. PROG. > I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is there something for which NJB _doesn't_ charge an arm and a leg? Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator Date: 27 Jan 91 00:09:49 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon "John C. Fowler" writes: > Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the > switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls > in the same way tone users can press "#"? Flashing the switchhook during the course of an operator-assisted call has signaled and recalled the operator since the beginning of time. Little has changed in the manner that the LEC connects to AT&T for operator assisted calls, even since divestiture. A tone-entered calling card call is functionally identical to an operator-assisted call. When such a call is made, control of the calling connection is passed from the caller to the IEC. Hence, when you hang up the connection remains until the IEC releases it. Pressing the switchhook for just a moment does not release the connection but signals the operator instead. This is why you were told to "hang up longer". This has nothing to do with providing convenience for rotary callers. Ever call operator-assisted as the second connection for a three-way? When you are through talking, you can't just drop the connection with a flash of the switchhook. Usually an operator comes back on the line and sometimes you get a really stupid one who cannot seem to just push "release" without giving you a ration of excrement. The fact that you as the caller cannot break the connection with the operator was sometimes used in pre-E911 days to send help to an emergency caller when the phone was hung up or the connection was otherwise broken before the operator could get an address. The operator would keep the connection up until the call could be traced. TSPS made this unnecessary, since the calling number was displayed on the TSPS console. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Here in IBT-land we can flash and dial 110 to recall the operator under these circumstances. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Videos By Phone Date: Sun, 27 Jan 1991 18:34:38 GMT > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). Begin back-of-the-envelope mode... Let's see, assuming they're using something like JPEG and a moderate resolution video signal (640x400x12 bits). That's 380K per frame, 30 frames per second, and the high side of 20:1 compression ratio. Give them 30:1 to make the calculations easy. About 2.5 gigabytes in 15 seconds, or a little over 1 gigabit/second. You couldn't do it over ethernet. You'd have to run fiber into each house... Hey, if they pay for the fiber it sounds like a good deal. :-> (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 15:02 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates A recent thread here discusses the practicality of competition arising in New Zealand, to let market forces work on monopolistic practices and prices of Telecom NZ. One statement too broadly made and accepted without question is to feel that, "competition is impractical." This is largely based on a belief that any competitor would have to build parallel transmission plant using the same technology or a similarly expensive technology as the existing company. I'd like to posit a few thoughts that counter such a view. Here in the US, the FCC undertook to let technology erode the rather shaky "natural monopoly" enjoyed by local Telcos. Thus, we have seen the ownership of cellular radio by non-Telcos. One maker, IMM of Philadelphia, has even fielded a cellular system suitable for use in rural areas to fixed positions. An even earlier technology from Farinon in the US and a Canadian firm used lower frequencies in the 450 Mhz region to serve rural users. We had a non-directional microwave technology called Digital Termination Service that was premature for the marketplace, with so few people applying for it that the FCC withdrew the frequency allocations. In England, the government legislated local competition into existence, with Cable and Wireless' Mercury Communications developing means to provide local telephone channels via existing cable television. Most recently, we have seen a US proposition, backed by the FCC, to let cable TV companies operate nodes of PCN telephones (akin to the UK "Phonepoints") along their cable routes. If the regulators or legislators in NZ will simply let entrepreneurs loose to try their ideas, New Zealanders might have a choice within a shorter time than Telecom New Zealand realizes! That's not to say they would realize what is happening to them very rapidly. Here is the US, most local Telcos are at present trying to ignore the threat, and hoping the public won't find out there really is no "dial tone monopoly;" that thay've all been living in Oz (and I don't mean NZ's cousins a thousand miles or so to the west!) ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Steve_M_Kile@uunet.uu.net Subject: Telecom*USA Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 11:47:07 PST Pat: I called Telecom*USA on Friday night, Jan. 25th and after a long conversation with the nice lady (and her supervisor) they agreed to sign me up for the Telecom*USA card and an 800 number at the $2.75/month rate. They asked many questions about my phone use and credit and then said I should be hooked up in two or three weeks. We will see. Steve steve_m_kile@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: Please follow up on this and let us know the results. I think the Telecom*USA card and 800 number setup is one of the better, less complicated, least expensive deals around. I think it took me two weeks to first get installed on their system but since that point their customer service has done maintainence on my account within hours, or a day at most. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" Subject: MCI MasterPhone Date: 26 Jan 91 04:24:24 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent calling card calls. The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a reasonable way to save a bit. No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay each month... sounded great. Well I just received the information packet from them. The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing instructions: --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits) --- dial # I can live without this nonsense. Lyle A. McGeoch, Rutgers University, lyle@dimacs.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #71 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17719; 27 Jan 91 19:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09631; 27 Jan 91 18:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae06622; 27 Jan 91 17:21 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:35:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #72 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271635.ab27213@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:34:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 72 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Donald E. Kimberlin] Digital Communication Over Radio [Rick Moll] Neax 2400 Codes Needed [Will Martin] Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Nick Sayer] INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones [Rop Gonggrijp] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:55 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Beginning with a query from Tom Lowe at AT&T Bell Labs in Holmdel In Digest Volume 11, Issue 60 (or so), several readers have posted the presentation as seen in their areas. Here is a post to hopefully give the topic a broad overview: The problem in understanding this topic is that most people who entered use of data communications since Dennis Hayes made a popular dial-up product of the "modem" never knew a major component of his product success was adoption of one of the _three_ ways the FCC authorized users in Part 68 of its Rules. Forced into taking control by the slow action of the telephone industry and considerable public complaint about "protective" devices called "Data Access Arrangements" ("DAA's") offered by the telephone companies, the FCC acted by asking public suggestions to get AT&T to protect its interests by describing ways to acceptably connect user- provided data transmission devices to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The basic principle of all three is the same...to have a user- sourced composite data signal enter a switching point (the first local exchange machine) in the PSTN at a power level of minus 13 dBm. Allowing for a wiring loss of 1 dB in the office, that level of the signal delivered to the local exchange building was set at minus 12 dBm. From there. levels can be controlled so as not to get so high as to couple themselves into adjacent circuits and cause noise or crosstalk in the network. The three methods are titled, "Permissive," Fixed Loss Loop," and "Programmed." The "Permissive" method requires that the modem tranmsit at a fixed, internally set power level of minus 9 dBm. It assumes there is a loss of 3 db in the subscriber loop, thus realizing the desired minus 12 dBm at the central office entrance. Any excess loop loss is to the detriment of the modem. Under these conditions, the FCC authorized plugging any modem into any regular telephone jack on the network, thus the name, "Permissive," a name most have forgotten by now. And, any regular telephone jack is the smaller "six-conductor" jack we have come to generically call an RJ-11. Other station wiring variations have different FCC numbers, like RJ-15 for a weatherproof outdoor plug and socket (recognizable as a fairly common AC twist-lock power conector with a center pin added to avoid accidental insertion into a power outlet). The 1200 bps modems Dennis Hayes first marketed would operate adequately at the then-current state of the dial network, so his use of the "permissive" arrangement was highly successful. As time pro- gressed, both modems and the PSTN improved such that it has become the norm, even for data rates of 9600 bps on the PSTN. That success and development has largely made the other two FCC-authorized methods technologically obsolete. The second method is called "Fixed Loss Loop," and specifies a wider eight-conductor plug that cannot fit into a "permissive" jack. It has a corner cut off for reasons explained later. In the FLL method, the modem is factory-set to transmit at minus 4 dBm, and the local telephone company is supposed to make and actual measurement of the, loop, providing an attenuator that gets the level to minus 12 dBm at the exchange entrance. While it can be had in most Bell operating company areas, most small "independent" telcos never tariffed it, so they will tell you you can't have it, anyway. Larger independents cheat and just look up what the loop loss of your cable is supposed to be and stick in a pad. Unfortunately, your loop can and often does have higher loss than the records show (due to bridged taps hung all over so many cable pairs), so you lose. It's probably no better than permissive. The "modular" jacks used are shaped such that a "permissive" plug will fit into them and work ... of course with extra loss in the attenuator plugged into the loop. Since your "permissive" modem is set at minus 9 dBm, and the FLL plan assumes you run minus 4 dBm, you have at least a 5 dB penalty starting out, and may well find the FLL jack, if fully installed with attenuator, works more poorly than a plain dial line. (For this reason, some modems have a "secret" adjustment to raise their transmission level for FLL operation.) We have come to use the term RJ-41 to name FLL jacks in general. What was intended to be the most precise method, "Programmed," requires the modem to contain an externally-controlled transmit level adjustment, set by the Telco installer putting a resistor across two more wires between the modem and jack, to set the modem's level anywhere from 0 dBm to minus 12 dBm. It works protectively in that no resistor causes minus 12 dBM, lower than permissive. Conversely, a "programmed" modem will transmit its full maximum 0 dBm if one puts a short circuit (a "zero Ohm resistor" ... and such are sold!) in the jack's programming slots. The potential for misinstallation and abuse is obvious ... it is not hard to unscrew the cover of the jack and change the resistor at all. Practically no non-Bell telco has ever tariffed "programmed" jacks, so their availablility is rather limited. We have come to call these by the generic term RJ-45. These use an eight-conductor plug with no corner cut off, so they cannot plug into an FLL jack, while both an FLL and a Permissive plug can fit into the Programmed jack. It of course, is a regular dial line, so permissive modems should operate as well in an RJ45 as in a regular line. What's questionable is if you get anything for whatever extra price you pay for an RJ45 in that case. It appears from some posts that Bell of PA has created an interesting product that may be of value for them. One hybrid FLL/Programmed jack, called RJ41S, has a switch for either mode, and its Western Electric style number was 635, so that number may be used for the jack hardware (where 625 was the WECo type for the "RJ-11" jack). Hopefully this exposition will help rationalize the various experiences reported from diferent locations on here. Most interesting about how our business has evolved is that the first inquiry came from the place where all this was first developed -- Bell Labs at Holmdel. There are probably still papers in the archives there describing all this with much more complete rationale. ------------------------------ From: Rick Moll Subject: Digital Communication Over Radio Date: 26 Jan 91 18:39:20 GMT Organization: WICAT Systems, Orem, Utah A friend of mine is doing his undergraduate EE thesis in the area of digital communications over radio. Can anyone provide some helpful references in this area? Also, he is particularly interrested in finding out anything he can about a specific product called "Digipack". Rick Moll Please post or reply to: rick@nullset.UUCP -or- uplherc!wicat!nullset!rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 13:17:50 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Neax 2400 Codes Needed The NEC Neax 2400 phone system we have here is, like all "new and improved" phone systems, driving me bats. The user manuals are woefully incomplete, assuming anyone trying to perform various functions has a phone instrument with all sorts of preprogrammed, labelled buttons for each function. Of course, none of the phones I've ever seen have a fifth of those preset functions. We received a handout at the time we moved in that lists some of the more common keypad-press equivalents of the programmed functions, but I need to know more. What I really need is the owner's or administrator's manual, but it looks like I'm never going to get access to that via normal channels. Here's the code equivalents I know: *99 = hold *5 = forward all *6 = cancel forward all *8 = forward busy/no answer *9 = cancel forward busy/no answer (how can "*99" work if this does?) *77 = pickup ringing incoming call in your pickup group 178 = call park (after flash) 179 = parked call retrieve local 180 = parked call retrieve remote (follow by extension of parked call) 123 = faulty trunk report (after flash) 173 = busy call back (after flash) 189 = directed call pickup (follow by extension of ringing phone) That's it. I'm sure there are a batch of others; if anyone knows any, please send them to me. (I'll accumulate and post the results, if I get any responses.) Specific question: One thing I am trying to figure out, at the moment, is how to remotely change call forwarding. That is, I know my extension and its authorization code (the same as the voicemail "password"). How do I, from some other place, call the PBX CPU (I realize I'll have to get that number here) and tell it to change the call forwarding on extension "n" [verify with password] to "call forward all to extension 'y7'" or whatever else I want done? If I can do this, can I also do it from a tone phone outside, or only from within the system? Am I having unreal expectations that this capability is available? I thought it was a standard feature of new phone systems. Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers Date: 27 Jan 91 10:35:56 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA Some explanation: quack is my trusty Sun 2 with its own phone line, which (of course) is different from my voice line. Tonight (Sun 1/27, 01:30 or so) the phone service was disrupted on quack's line (only), but with the most bizarre set of symptoms I've ever heard of. I was logged in to a local machine at 2400 baud and suddenly got NO CARRIER. Well, that's not unusual. The machine in question is behind a PBX with a bad attitude. :-) Redial. No dial tone. Ok. Wait one minute, redial. Fine. Back in business. Three minutes later, NO CARRIER. Redial. No dial tone. It's been like that ever since. There's still battery (48v from telco) since I can breath into the mouthpiece and hear it, and make DTMF with an old once-was-leased bell phone. If I dial the number from the voice line, I get rings, but the line in question does not get the ring (90 vac, or whatever). If I pick up line two (still no dialtone), THEN dial line two from the other line, I get busy. Ok. So my subscrber loop isn't broken, so I call 611. I cringe. I'll get an answering-machine-with-a-pulse. Sure enough. She takes my "report," says "uh huh" in all the right places, and promises they'll get to it by Monday at 5 PM. I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop. But that's not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh. ...And they wonder why I decided on microwave instead of leased lines for our WAN link... :-) Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ [44.2.1.17] 209-952-5347 (Telebit) [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like something is hung in the office; the tester will clear it soon if it hasn't been done already. I've had the same kinds of problems in the past. The clerk taking your call is not trained to know all these things, and if they were to get into the habit of passing customer calls direct to the technicians then they (the technicians) would never be able to get their own work done. When the tech calls you back -- if the problem cannot be isolated or located in the CO -- then you will have a chance to tell your story to someone who can resolve it. The best report you could have filed with the clerk would be to give the number, and say that the line is alive; there is battery present, but no dial tone. Tell them you have checked at the demark (I assume you have! Once I almost tore the backside off of a repair clerk only to be embarassed when I found a phone on this end was malfunctioning!) and the problem seems to be in the central office. The clerk will report it that way. They have to quote you a turn-around time, even if the time involved seems ridiculous based on your appraisal of the problem. I've had things get hung in the office, been told they would fix it 'by Tuesday' and in fact had the problem gone a few minutes later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones etc... Date: 27 Jan 91 18:50:14 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic I went to the Eurocom Trade-Show here in Amsterdam and met with some of the people that are selling equipment for USE with the INMARSAT system. (If I am correctly informed, MARISAT is the old name). There's two types of services on these sattelites: Inmarsat-A: Speech transmission, takes a dish of about one meter diameter, costs a lot of money ($50 K or more) and is even more expensive to subscribe to. The only code in the machine however is the 'telephone-number' of the device itself. This seven-digit number can be called by dialling +871-XXXXXXX (Atlantic Ocean), +872-XXXXXXX (Pacific Ocean), +873-XXXXXXX (Indian Ocean) or +874-XXXXXXX (Atlantic Ocean - West). Inmarsat-C: Data transmission. This service is packet-oriented and the devices transmit burst of 75 Watts (!) at 1.6 GHz, yet the sales-people talk about only 0.5 Watts which would suggest a 1/150 duty cycle. This is transmitted through an omnidirectional antenna (clear view of sattelite still required). Two types of services available: telex and X.25, but very few CES (Coast Earth Stations) support X.25. Telex Country codes are 581, 582, 583 and 584 in the above order. These devices are newer and they got a little smarter and gave the things three codes that have to match up. But since all these things transmit all three of them at 75 Watts omni, this does not sound much more secure. Devices "only" cost about $3 K. A couple of remarks: 75 Watts at 1.6 GHz sounds like a nice discussion for the people at comp.risks (about two years worth ;-) and yes, there are people making free calls with Inmarsat-A sets, and yes, the Inmarsat organisation recognizes to the in crowd that these people CAN NOT be traced in any way they can see. Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM tel: +31 20 6001480 [Moderator's Note: Although tracing them might be very difficult or impossible, you'd think their pirate instruments could be rendered almost useless by employing certain security techniques which cellular carriers use. For example, the inclusion of a difficult-to-alter electronic serial number in the instrument and the refusal of Inmarsat land stations to pass or accept traffic to units on a subsequent 'negative listing' would kill much fraud from the less agressive or technically-oriented users. A regular analysis of the traffic patterns of other 'questionable' users would lead the authorities to land-sites participating in the scams. For example, would anyone with a pirated cellular phone in the USA be foolish enough to routinely call the same phone number, enabling investigators to agressively question the receiver of the calls as to their origin? Fraud will never be totally eliminated but it is difficult for me to understand why Inmarsat feels nothing can be done. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #72 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19585; 27 Jan 91 21:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19100; 27 Jan 91 19:31 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae09631; 27 Jan 91 18:26 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #73 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271740.ab17422@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:23 CST Volume 11 : Issue 73 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation [Donald E. Kimberlin] Telco / Customer Relations [Andy Jacobson] New Glossary of ISDN / Data Com Terms in Archives [Goetz Kluge] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:50 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation In a number of posts here (largely under the heading "CNN from Baghdad") there was a lot of meandering around the topic of what CNN called their "four-wire line." It seems many participants thought such a transmission circuit is a rather special form of transmission medium; one infrequently used and perhaps of exceedingly high cost. What follows is an attempt to describe what is actually a rather common and age-old technique in a way that might help readers know how to use it for their own benefit. Most people involved with telephony have only been exposed to local use, adn even local subscriber line physical plant, where a single pair of wires is used for a dial subscriber line for one over- riding reason: The cost of providing service to the majority of users, people who simply want dial voice-grade telephone service. Were the local telephone exchanges to use a "four-wire line" to each and every subscriber, we could have a far more idealized Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN - the proper CCITT name). We in the US often mistitle the PSTN as "DDD," which actually is the Bell acronym for Direct Distance Dialing (long-distance subscriber dialing, called STD in the UK, or a close equivalent in other nations). Transmission losses could have historically been much less, as there would be no echoes to combat. We would transmit in one direction on one pair and transmit in the other direction on the other, without interaction between the two directions. However, to provide such a plant would require double the literally millions of tones of copper wire that have been installed worldwide. The economic cost factors are obvious. Paying for the local cable plant has been a major cost factor for public telephone networks worldwide. (Other alternatives such as fiber and coaxial cable used by cable TV companies are making some change, but the millions of tons of copper are already there ... and ISDN is planned in a way to try to continue to use that imbedded investment. So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber. In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line. The main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an electrical wavelength of the signal it carries. Studying a beginning physics book will show that one wavelength at 3000 Hertz in a perfect line is 61 miles, and at 300 Hertz, it would be 610 miles! (Another factor called the "propagation velocity" even stretches this _much_ more in practical wire.) Obviously, to have even reasonably well-matched wire would not be reasonable, and it wasn't at all economical in the developmental era of the PSTN. So, this network evolved assuming some very large tradeoffs were needed. An electrical transmission line has one interesting characteristic just opposite from water pipes or acoustical guides (hollow tubes). Instead of an open distant end letting all the energy spill out, an open-ended electrical line _reflects_ all its received power back toward the source. A shorted line absorbs all the energy (as you find out when you short a power line and blow the fuse!). What this characteristic means to telephone transmission is that with lines as short as they must be in local plant, echoes are reflected back toward the speaker, subject only to the losses they incur rattling back and forth. They really are pretty high, but we don't notice them. The reason: Echoes that return to our ear in less than about 10-15 thousandths of a second are heard by us a part of the outbound signal ... we just don't hear them. Local connections are short enough that for general telephony, echoes can be largely discounted, even thought they are there. Very early in the development of longer transmission paths, it was learned that transmission losses mount rapidly when one really does have miles and miles of wire to talk on. In intercity transmission lines, use of electronics to amplify the signal as intervals was seen to be mandatory to achieve commercially successful "long lines." Thus, as soon as the three-electrode vacuum tube was available, the telephone industry had a very real interest in it, and pressed to realize its use as soon as possible. (In fact, a Bell Labs worker contributed "negative feedback" to the early vacuum-tube circuitry, making the "tube" a controllable, useful technology instead of a physics lab curio.) But, the vacuum tube (as its descendant, the transistor) has one limitation. It can pass a signal in only one direction, a characteristic that happens to match that idealized "four-wire" transmission line. So, "long lines" very early on (in the 1910-15 time frame) all became "four-wire lines." They did, however, have to interface to the echo-prone and less controllable local "two-wire" (single pair) telephone networks. The method devised was the "hybrid," in telephony mostly an arrangement of trans- formers that had three windings, one for the local two-wire side and one each for the sending and receiving "long lines." Now, echoes were a real problem. Not only would echoes from the local two-wire line take long enough to return to the distant city to be heard, but impedance mismatching of the two-wire local line to the transformer could cause received distant signals to reflect right in the transformer back down the transmitting channel as well. "Echo control" became a major topic in handling "long lines." (The trick is to add a fourth winding set to the transformer with an "artificial line" that is adjusted to create the match. In telephony, its name is a "balancing network." All this sort of work was at first (and for decades) the work of the "long lines" people. Very little of it was in the hands of the local people. The "long lines" people were AC and electronics people, while the local people were DC and electrical people. The oeprational reasons for having a "Long Lines Department" are obvious in this context. As multichannel "carrier systems" evolved (and early, too, beginning around 1915 between Toledo, Ohio and South Bend, Indiana in the US), their intrinsic electronic transmission using vacuum tubes made a "four-wire" (of virtual wires, certainly) a commonplace in intercity transmission. And every "carrier system" since the beginning has been made of "four-wire" paths ... set up in pairs of channels, one for each direction of transmission, needing that "hybrid" function at each end to connect to the local plant. In intercity (and more so international) carrier systems, a "line" transiting a junction point can be (and is) connected on a "four-wire" basis, either _through_ a "four wire switching machine" for PSTN temporary connections, or hard-wired _around_ the switching machine if the use is a semi-permanent "special services" circuit, like a dedicated data line or indeed, a permanent speech circuit, as is CNN's "four-wire line," our subject here. At the end points, one local pair is used for each direction of transmission ... at a price reflective of using twice the local plant. Local wire pairs ... "loops" ... for "special services" are expensive to rent. After all, they are no longer available for the local telco to derive PSTN revenue on. If reaching the "long lines" point of presence (now called a "POP" in American jargon) requires use of local wire (nowadays local carrier channels) across a city, these are no longer available for "trunk" use between local PSTN exchanges, considerable revnue potential is lost, and is going to be paid for. Thus, many speech-only "private circuits" do have a hybrid in the "POP" and use only one local pair anyway ... but are STILL "four wire channels" between cities. The British have some excellent descriptive terminology we Americans never developed. They speak of transmission circuits as "two wire presented" or "four wire presented" to the end user. These terms, of course recognize that long circuits are all "four wire," regardless of how they are 'presented" to the end user. What are the advantages of "four wire presentation?" Avoidance of the electrical echo bugaboo. And, part of the "control" of echoes in "two-wire presentations" is to deliberately insert transmission loss to make the echoes a bit lower, so "four wire presented" channels can have less loss and sound louder ... and deliver the received signal higher above the noise ... making the signal sound "cleaner." This of course is why high-quality dedicated data circuits are four-wire presented ... to give the modem signals the most advantage possible. Hopefully, if you have persisted through this longish explanation, you now know that the "four wire line" is indeed not rare at all. Rather, it is the norm between cities, and especially between nations. You know it isn't new. It's just that most people have never seen one. Improvements in the local plant (including widespread deployment of digital carrier, the "T" carrier so often spoken of today) have made extension of the "four-wire line" right into your local exchange a reality in most places, so even your PSTN phone sounds much louder and cleaner than it did twenty years ago. That's what solid-state electronics coupled to digital transmission did for us all. Those who really _needed_ the advantages of "four-wire" have used it for a long time. Major examples were the FAA's network of dedicated lines that had to be interconnected at random (reflected in Bell parlance as the "FAA 300-type switching system), and the US military's AUTOVON network. While AUTOVON was based on four-wire switching machines throughout right to four-wire telephone sets, economics even there forced the allowance of two-wire user lines and telephones for voice-only stations, and many AUTOVON lines wound up being four-wire. But, AUTOVON also has many "four-wire" user stations where dedicated-line type "full-duplex' data modems can be used. There! This started out being a typical short post, but I think all the detail is needed to provide the reasons in words that show how things got the way they are. I hope some readers found it useful enough to now know _why_ they might themselves already have some "four-wire lines" around and _how_ they might themselves take advantage of a very useful technique that is far from unusual. Thanks to our Moderator for publishing it, in the hope it is a useful tutorial for many readers. For those who really want to learn more, I recommend the following books: 1.) "Basic Carrier Telephony" by David Talley, a real chestnut of telephone transmission for the non-technical reader who is weak on physics. Originally published by Hayden Book Company as their stock number 5749 (Library of Congress catalog number 60-10470 in its second edition, I understand that Wiley in New York has republished it and finds several Telcos use it for textbook for technicians. 2.) "Understanding Communications Systems," by Don L. Cannon and Gerald Luecke, originally published and sold by Radio Shack stores as part number 62-2018 (ISBN 0-89512-035-6) for $2.95, this book has been republished by Howard Sams at Indianapolis for about six times the price in hardback. It uses far less classic "telephonese" but has excellent ways of showing how analog and digital transmission are far more related than most non-technical people can understand. I recommend both of these books to the harried educators on here who are frustrated in finding short texts for introductory curricula. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 23:45 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Telco / Customer Relations I have read here (too) numerous posts about rude, stupid, uncooperative, and just plain WRONG operators, customer service representatives, etc. Well, I'm tired of it. Not because I think it's bad to post these things, but because they are there in the first place. I think we need to do something about it. In an organized fashion that is. Indeed several telco employees have used this forum to publicly explain or apologize for actions committed by employees of their companies. I would like to ask some of these telco employees here to do a bit of research and post for us addresses for real corporate complaint/action offices within their telco. Maybe we could have an archive list of them. I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before conducting business. Even if you get their identification afterwords, get it. Then, either through addresses posted here or through other means, pursue problems. This is especially important with the monopolies (and near monopolies) that we have in the communications industry. For many things you simply can't take your business somewhere else, and where you can, the service is often worse. Creating and using a customer action contact list might deliver some satisfaction, but it might also make some improvements in the service we receive. If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for that operator. Pat: Don't wait for the last straw to pull the plug on AT&T; tell their corporate ombudsman what you've told us about their service. Tell them seven bills is unacceptable. Tell Mr. Allen if necessary. If they ignore you, then it's really time for customer revolt. For my part, here is GTE's "Customer Action Line" (from LA at least) 800-982-6347. I have gotten some good responses from them. Their address is: EXECUTIVE OFFICES One GTE Place Thuosand Oaks, CA. 91362-3811 I do NOT (and would never) work for GTE The customer is always right, because the customer is the company's employer. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 06:18:25 PST From: cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: New Glossary for ISDN / Data Com in Archives [Moderator's Note: The 43 K file has been moved into the Telecom Archives in the section with the other glossary/reference files. PAT] Abbrevations for ISDN and Data Communications 1991/01/28, Goetz Kluge Seoul cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu This list has been compiled during my work for a German semiconductor maker at its Seoul branch. So you also will find some abbrevations related to that products of that company. But the larger part of this collection is not related to my employer. During my work I got quite fed up with those many abbreviations which quite often are not explained in the literature. So always when one of these crossed my way, I filed it in this file. There might be some mistakes: (a) Sometimes I could not verify which of different explanaitions given for an abbrevation was the right one. (b) I am German, so is my English. I hope you don't mind or even have some fun with it. Any hints, corrections or new abbrevations are welcome. Goetz mail: Goetz Kluge & Dr. An-Ly Yao-Kluge Goetz Kluge 204-11 Itaewon-Dong Im Streemelmoor 2 Yongsan-Ku D - W-2852 Kuehrstedt Seoul Niedersachsen 140-200 KOREA (ROK) GERMANY phone: +82-2-271-6111 ext. 448 (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul) FAX: +82-2-268-2697 (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul) e-mail: CompuServe: 71520,3515 (Goetz Kluge) or 71530,1107 (An-Ly Yao-Kluge) or Internet: cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. When connected there, cd telecom-archives. My thanks again to Goetz for this donation. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #73 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25548; 28 Jan 91 1:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14174; 27 Jan 91 23:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31581; 27 Jan 91 22:32 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #74 BCC: Message-ID: <9101272210.ab21072@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 74 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Telecom Forum on Compuserve [TELECOM Moderator] Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [TELECOM Moderator] Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker [John Higdon] AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Ho] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Colin Plumb] Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [John Higdon] Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:26:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Telecom Forum on Compuserve A new telecom forum or Special Interest Group (SIG) is getting started on Compuserve. You can reach it with GO PCS-87 when on line with CIS. Another alias will probably be GO TELECOM in the near future. The folks there have contacted me asking to distribute TELECOM Digest via that forum, but my understanding of the rules here is that the Digest (actually any Internet mailing list / Usenet news group) can NOT be made available for commercial purposes, which would certainly seem to preclude it being read on line at CIS in a SIG or forum. TELECOM Digest is distributed to many commercial email sites at the request of *individual subscribers* at those sites who have requested receiving the Digest there for their convenience. Several subscribers at Compuserve in fact receive the Digest in their email there ... but public, for-profit distribution is not an option. I've never moderated this Digest with the intent of making a profit doing so, nor can I give permission to recipients to redistribute the Digest with that intent. But you will see me from time to time on the new CIS telecom forum, as I have promised them I would stop in to visit with the readers there. My best wishes for the success of this new group! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:07:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to call a number from which they have been prohibited: "The number you have dialed has activated call screening, meaning they do not wish to receive calls at this time. Please try your call again later." There are no tones at the start of the message, at least in the IBT version. To add a number to the list of callers you do not wish to hear from, you do as follows: Dial *60. A recorded message advises that (your) "Call Screening is now turned on. You have X entries in your directory. You may dial now, or wait for instructions." (five second pause) "To reject the last call received, dial # followed by the seven or ten digit number of the caller, then dial the # again to complete the entry. If you do not know the number of the last call, dial # 01 # to have it added as a 'private entry' ... dial 1 to hear the entries in your directory." Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be rejected. This is a very nice feature, especially the part about being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group) they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't stop them. If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing *60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you wish to add cannot be screened at this time." Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return last call you received) rely on the ANI received. If the number is outside the LATA then you get "I'm sorry, the number you are calling cannot be used with this feature." If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the busy signal. Instead you get a recording saying "the number you are trying to reach is busy. If it becomes available within the next thirty minutes you will be notified and automatically connected." Phunny experience: I tried repeat dialing my own line. First I dialed myself and got a busy signal, so my number would be in the buffer used by *66 and *69. Then I dialed *66, and got the recording telling me the number was busy, and that if it became free in the next thirty minutes I would be notified, etc ... apparently the number is checked every thirty seconds or so, because in less than a minute my phone gave the special ring which means 'your call is available'. When I answered, there was silence for a couple seconds and a recording which said "the number which you were calling was free, but has become busy again. We will keep trying ... " I hung up and sure enough, thirty seconds later, the ring again, and the same recording again !! I suppose it would have gone on forever except that I punched *86 and was told my 'repeat dial and return call requests have now been cancelled'. *89 also does the same thing. *80 temporarily turns off Call Screening. Other Call Screening tidbits: the number to be screened has to be supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening, and repeat/return call functions however. The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for the call. But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it. PAT ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker Date: 27 Jan 91 09:27:42 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me see... [hours later after much thinking] By the early seventies, Pac*Bell (actually Pacific Telephone, but I am going to refer to both the pre and post divestiture company as Pac*Bell) had converted most, but by no means all of its offices to DIAL. Notable exceptions were the toll stations in the desert and the foothill communities of the Sierra Nevada, but then, hey, what kind of revenues could the company get out of these few people anyway? By the mid seventies, touch tone was starting to become available in many offices (and this, friends, only ten-plus years after becoming commonplace in the rest of the US). It was a lot of fun to try to order Touch Tone service. The reps had no idea what you were talking about, unless, of course, you would find someone who had just moved here from the east coast. Another inovation of the seventies (in an area that Pac*Bell is most expert in -- billing) was the introduction of ZUM or Zone Usage Measurement. The net effect of this plan was to carve up cities larger than a wide spot in the road so that more toll calls could be generated. Before ZUM, you could call from anywhere in San Jose to Sunnyvale, a neighboring community. After ZUM, since San Jose had been carved up into three zones it became a rather expensive toll call between south San Jose and Sunnyvale. This has got to be telephone pioneering at its finest. When ESS finally appeared, it took sometimes many months for the technicians to figure out how to implement the most basic of custom calling services. The first hearings of what we now consider "standard" tone signals by me came not from ESS. It was some brand of Japanese crossbar located in a trailer in the south part of town. This stuff was great: when you dialed a toll number, an operator would come on the line to ask for your number. But he/she had exactly thirty seconds to do this, otherwise the call went to reorder. Calling up the SF peninsula during peak times was impossible. This was in the mid-seventies. But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78 percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout 1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other 22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made to accept the CONTAC abortion.) In my crossbar office, call setup time is so slow that one's hand melds to the receiver while waiting. It will not accept 20 PPS dialing (thanks, CONTAC), and some of the connections are so noisy that you have to hold the receiver away from your ear. Scheduled replacement date: none. Oh, you say, rural areas sometimes take awhile to catch up. I live within the corporate limits of the largest city in northern California. So take that, all you IBT and NJB hotshots. We march to a different drummer out here. Wake me when it is over. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Organization: Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:50:15 GMT In <16435@accuvax.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless >phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even >if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state >that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb! > I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated >version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is >also a great buy. All agreed, and I thought I'd jump in here because I *am* one of those people who hates AT&T. :-) This grumbling notwithstanding, I own a 5500 (yep, it set me back just under $200) and just bought a different model for my parents for Christmas. The only complaint I have about the 5500 is that it doesn't withstand tipping very well; I get quite a bit of static if I put it at the wrong angle to the base's antenna. I have one easy question about cordless phones and one trickier one. 1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) 2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. (As an aside, I was shopping for the phone for Christmas and ran across a phone by Northwestern Bell Phones. I searched the box for info about security, and it gave little information -- just enough to get past the regs, and something about "security plus" -- not the real name, but you get the idea. Turns out their idea of security was this: If the phone's in the base, nobody can dial out. Sounds secure to me. :-) ) Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Peons don't speak for bigwigs. ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:57:00 GMT In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: >> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? jyacc!charles@uunet.uu.net (Charles McGuinness) wrote: > You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer > rotary dial phones! I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it is to make less use of the local switch's dialing register. So I have the most vanilla POTS imaginable (a long-distance volume discount option, but that's not a class of service) and am content. So it takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in. Big deal. Besides, it lets me use a classic - a black 500 set with a dial! (The real reason I got it is that it migrates around my bedroom and I've tripped over it or the cord endless times. Hurrah for indestruct- ibility.) (The most recent annoyance was navigating Telebit's voice-mail system, but I can use my modem for those occasional needs.) Colin ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments Date: 27 Jan 91 17:08:28 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Joe Konstan writes: > Basically, these are almost identical. The 5500 has very good sound > quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a > lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs). There are hold > buttons on both the base and extension, etc. The 5500 does hold the sound quality edge over the Panasonic. But the Panasonic has an important feature lacking on the AT&T: long DTMF. The AT&T falls victim to the most frustrating drawback found on phones by voicemail users and that is those short DTMF bursts regardless of how long you hold the button. The Panasonic will sound the digit as long as you want. Side by side you would probably find the standby battery life of the AT&T to be superior to the Panasonic. Panasonic's auto-channel-select is more convenient than the 5500's strictly manual system, but that defect is overcome in the otherwise lesser-endowed model 5400. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 02:58:38 GMT I was just walking through the living room and noticed Dragnet on, on Nickelodeon. They were busting a con-man working out of a "boiler room" (actually, quite a nice office). Wouldn't it be nice... Friday: "Call the station..." Conman: "Not on my phone you don't. Those phones cost money." Friday: "Here's two bits..." (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: As someone old enough to remember watching Dragnet when it was a new show on television, you brought back some fine memories! Sgt. Joe Friday of the Los Angeles Police was assigned to the 'bunko squad' in several of those old episodes. Those stories were based on real cases in California from the late 1940's ... do you remember how at the end of every show the gong would sound and a somber voice would announce that the subject had been found guilty under California law such-and-such and sentenced to so many years at San Quentin? Joe Friday worked in Violent Crimes, Narcotics, Sex-Homicide, Vice and other areas, but his stories about con-artists he arrested were among my favorites. He had two partners in the series. When the first one died (in real life), they wrote him out of the Dragnet series by having him killed in a gun battle in a hostage episode. If you like police drama, it was an excellent series although a period piece -- a bit outdated -- when seen forty years later. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #74 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00308; 29 Jan 91 3:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29080; 29 Jan 91 1:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30406; 29 Jan 91 0:42 CST Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #75 BCC: Message-ID: <9101282345.ab28427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!) [David R. Zinkin] Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Terry Kennedy] Re: Telco / Customer Relations [Steve Kass] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Nolan] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Brian D. McMahon] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Floyd Davidson] TDD Emulation by a Mac [Doug Faunt] Caller-ID Information Decoding [Eric R. Skinner] Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Bill Berbenich] Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig Watkins] You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [David Barts] Maybe Under Rocks [David W. Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 03:40:24 GMT Thanks to all who responded to my post about the AT&T ACUS Service. As I type this, the service is scheduled to start here at CWRU in less than 1 1/2 hours. If there's interest, I'll report on what I find here vs. what I've heard about from other locations. For now, though, I have another question. I'd like to contact the Customer Service Departments (or the equivalent, since "Customer Service" doesn't seem to be common anymore) of several telephone companies. If it's possible to send E-mail to the higher-ups at AT&T, it ought to be possible to send mail to AT&T's Customer Service division. Can anyone help me with this? I'd also appreciate the E-mail address for British Telecom's Customer Service if possible. I know the domain (bt.co.uk) but can't find the full address I need. Thanks, David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers Date: 28 Jan 91 00:54:48 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article <16470@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop. But that's > not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the > local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I > could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least > know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom > readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh. Well, it depends on how friendly you are with your local phone company, or how big a customer you are. I have a 24-hour number for the maintenance group for our switch (since the same facility houses some 50-60K lines they have 24-hour coverage) as well as 9-to-5 number for the person who handles the program issues on the switch. These were cheerfully provided to me when I asked, your mileage may vary. 8-). And your problem isn't that unusual. I could tell you horror stories about call forwarding foulups in the switch that would make you cringe... Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:04 EDT From: Subject: Re: Telco / Customer Relations Andy Jacobson writes: > I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco > rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before [...] > If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't > call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for > that operator. [etc.] It's easy to want to make hell for someone and hope to have them fired, but don't forget that these operators may be victims of poor training and working conditions that don't foster learning from more experienced employees. My guess is that most of the employees are really trying hard in a difficult job. It might be best (if not as effective) to complain about poor service without mentioning names, and suggest that training be improved. As for something like international call blocking, do you really think that the subject is part of routine training, or is in a reference manual anywhere? I don't. That doesn't excuse the operator who makes up an answer, but if he bothers a supervisor to find the answer to your question, he might garner a mark against him. Let's complain against lousy service, yes, but let's aim our complaints at the source of the problem, not just a symptom. Steve Kass - Math/CS - Drew U - Madison NJ 07940 - 2014083614 - skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: 28 Jan 91 04:59:57 GMT ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: >1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) I personally prefer the flexible antennas, as opposed to the three foot extendible/breakable monsters. Part of this is using them in places like lying down in bed, when the antenna kinda gets in the way, and the fact that I've replaced two or three of the others because my younger son busted them by bending them too fast. Can't say I've noticed much difference in signal strength between the two thpes, either. >2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel. It does NOT scramble your phone call in any way. This is based on a fairly thorough perusing of the manuals and the fact that scrambling/descrambling chips are still a little pricey for phones in the under $200 range. The cheapest cordless phone I've seen that offered scrambling was something like $500. (Don't remember where I saw it, somewhere like Sharper Image.) BTW, I've had several cordless phones, and have had VERY good luck with the higher priced Panasonic phones, especially the ten channel model. (I missed the original posting, but get the impression it slammed Panasonic.) I've not had much good luck with Sony cordless phones, though. Michael Nolan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 18:59:24 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Which reminds me ... again. :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in business? MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link between soldiers and the Stateside phone network. Has this service been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work? Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 08:25:44 GMT >[Moderator's Note: [...] >The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and >these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the >'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you >to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone >then you are the customer. PAT] It went even further than that, though I don't know much of the details. AT&T leased, for use in Saudi Arabia, a portable earth station immediately after the crisis started. The FAXs were routed through the leased satellite link during off hours. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:57:44 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: TDD Emulation by a Mac I don't believe I brought this up here before. I'm looking into TDD emulation by a Mac. I've got a couple of leads on making a Mac do Baudot, maybe even at 45.45 baud, but I do need to provide a modem. I have a few options here. I have a couple of old Pennywhistle 103 modems that as I recall should be suitable for conversion. Does anyone have the documentation for these? I haven't located whatever I might have. A reference to the original Popular Electronics article would be useful, but there was a more complete package available, that I had at one time, that would be more useful. Also, references to old construction articles for 300 baud modems, preferably using the XR2206 and XR2211, preferably known good are desirable. I have the EXAR app notes. Comments on their accuracy are welcome. And of course, any other information you have about such things above the basics would be much appreciated. I've references the previous articles on TDD's that came across here, and they were most useful. Thanks, and 73, doug faunt@cisco.com PS: In digging into my archives, I came across a set of the "Inside Ma Bell" articles from 73 Magazine. df ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:56:16 EST From: xgml!ers@dataco.uucp Subject: Caller-ID Information Decoding There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer. I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming numbers. If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the incoming data? It's worth noting that I am in Canada, in Bell Canada territory. As David O'Heare (gandlaf!oheare@uunet.uu.net) mentioned in volume 11, issue 57, Canada's data is different from the US CLASS data. So perhaps the real question is "Will ClassMate work at all?" Thanks, Eric R. Skinner UUCP: ...!dataco!xgml!ers Software Exoterica Corporation Internet: xgml!ers@dataco.UUCP ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 13:34:25 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I just spoke with Southern Bell's marketing department today to get the latest info on Caller*ID. You may remember that according to my "inside source" at Southern Bell, CLID was supposed to have been available FOR ORDERING today (Jan. 28). That is not currently the case. A "no-later-than" implemementation date for the metropolitan Atlanta area was set for February 14, according to Southern Bell PR folks (as of my conversation with them in late Dec. '90). As of sometime in the past week or so, Southern Bell is referring all CLID questions to their Marketing department - the folks who will actually market (naturally) and take orders for this new service. My call today to marketing - (404) 780-2525 - revealed that Southern Bell will be holding training for their people beginning Feb. 14 and that is quite likely the earliest date at which orders will now be taken. Technically speaking, as of my last conversation with my "inside source", the switching equipment and SS7 is all ready for CLID and the appropriate software has been loaded to the various metro Atlanta switches. What currently stands between this stage and the next in which the service is actually offered to the public is a (1) testing/debugging phase (currently in progress) and (2) training of the order-takers (see above), currently scheduled for Feb. 14. Bottom line and my personal assessment: CLID will not be on-line until Feb. 14 at the earliest. With all due credit to Southern Bell, they never went public with any date prior to Feb. 14. It now appears that their "no-later-than" date has since become a "no-sooner-than" date. The feelings that I get from my various conversations with Southern Bell employees (including my "Deep Throat"), is that they have received quite a few inquiries about CLID - and that the greater number of their calls have been to ask about when-can-I-order-it? One order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman" along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID, I'm going to have my phone disconnected!' I'll keep the list posted, as I find out more. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him take it from there ...) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones Date: 28 Jan 91 11:47:40 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16452@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CRW@icf.hrb.com (me) writes: > A) > B) > C) EXp ? 0 or 1 > D) MIN Mark > E) MIN Mark bit > Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2? If so, I thought > that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone? I believe the phone or the system can request this. > A) access method 1 or 0 > B) access 1 digit > C) > D) > E) > I'm not sure what this is? Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell > us? This might have something to do with accessing the reverse > control channel (just a wild guess). I now believe that these two categories are one in the same, ie: A) access method 1 or 0 B) access 1 digit C) EXp ? 0 or 1 D) MIN Mark E) MIN Mark bit EXp is the bit that controls "access method" which determines whether the mobile will send both MIN1 and MIN2 on every access attempt. I'm assuming that MIN Mark is another name for this (half because of its name and half from the process of elimination). Can anyone confirm this? Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:21:59 pst From: David Barts Subject: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA The Moderator writes: > . . . the good ole USA allows calls everywhere. If I remember a previous thread correctly, you can't call Cuba from the US (with the exception of Guantanamo Bay). David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb [Moderator's Note: I believe you can call Cuba; but the call cannot be dialed direct and has to be routed manually by the operator. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Maybe Under Rocks Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:42:22 CST From: "David W. Tamkin" Plagiarized unabashedly from Tamayo Otsuki's act on "Comic Strip Live Late Night," broadcast on the Fox network Saturday, January 26, 1991: "I was horny, so I called a 900 number. I talked fifteen minutes and they charged me $82. When I call Japan I talk fifteen minutes and they charge me $17. Where do these people live?" David Tamkin PO Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 dattier@vpnet.chi.il.us GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 MCIMail:426-1818 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #75 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29381; 30 Jan 91 1:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18880; 30 Jan 91 0:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03386; 29 Jan 91 22:59 CST Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #76 BCC: Message-ID: <9101292223.ab14163@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 76 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 [David E A Wilson] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore] Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Heath Roberts] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Randy Borow] Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam [David Smallberg] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker [moocow!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu] Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"? [Gary D. Archer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:40:22 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >on it. Please send comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort >of thing useful and would like to see it here more often. PAT] Sorry about sending this to the list but I am unable to get Mr. Degnan's email address to work. >Mar 5-8 >Communications '91 >No location set >Sidney, Australia >+44 (1) 487-5831 This should read: Mar 5-8 Communications & Office Technology '91 Sydney Exhibition Centre Darling Harbour Sydney NSW Australia +61 3 867 4500 (voice) +61 3 867 7981 (fax) The phone numbers are for Australian Exhibition Services Pty Ltd Illoura Plaza 424 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia which explains the Melbourne area code for a Sydney exhibition. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:01:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? To correct the Moderator's Note: Yes, in Chicago, you had to start using 1+, but that is for calls to another area code. You still use just 7D for calls within your own area code. What I was saying was that 215 is the first area I know of to change 1 + 7D for long distance WITHIN it -to- 7D for long distance WITHIN it in preparation for N0X/N1X prefixes. Long distance (and local) to another area code from 215 is 1 + NPA + aaaaaa7D, and that is not being changed. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:17:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code Oops, maybe I should have added "adjacent" to my message warning about 301/310 etc., given the message I have received about 415/514. (I also had a case where I answered a Newark, Delaware pay phone on 302-366 exchange, was asked by a British-sounding operator if I would accept a collect call, and I said I didn't think I could since I was on a pay phone; I started reciting the number, including the area code, where I was, and the operator said "203, 302 -- oh, wrong number.") ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:34:54 GMT In article <16478@accuvax.nwu.edu> ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: >1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) They have less range than the telescoping antennas, but still work very well. I have one and only notice a difference at the edges of reception. Sound quality is still excellent. >2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. If you want encrypted audio, start looking for digital transmission. You could maybe get a couple of Motorola walkie-talkies with their DES scrambling module (this'd work great for cordless telephone -- good sound, three or four mile range w/o a repeater....) but that'll run you about $1K per radio, plus the security modules. I don't think you'll find any consumer telephone on the market that actually has secure communications. AT&T's security simply sets a key number in the base and handset each time they're mated, which prevents someone sitting outside your house from using your telephone line with another handset. Cordless conversations are definitely legal to receive (cellular too, but law enforcement can't use information from cell telephones without a warrant). Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 28 12:27:55 CST 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Michael Ho had queried about flexible antennas for cordless phones. I, too, have seen them. My father has one on his Panasonic two-line cordless, and let me tell you that phone has way too many static problems! I don't know if it's the antenna or the phone itself (methinks it's the combination of both); nevertheless, the clarity leaves much to be desired. Basically, the question of flexible antennas is a matter of personal preference. I am not a technician, nor do I admit to having much knowledge of this realm of telecommunications; however, most of the people whom I know prefer the regular, metal, retractable antennas. Re: AT&T's security code for its cordless phones: the higher model numbers (5300, 5400, 5500 series, etc.) have many more security channels available. From what I know, these models scramble a security code every time you put the phone in its base or hang up. I have never been the victim of mysterious calls (even when I had AT&T's atrocious 4000 series cordless phones), nor have I ever known anyone who experienced this problem. Anyone out there ever been the victim, or know someone who has been a victim, of such? I'm curious to know. BTW, one unrelated item of interest: several issues ago, our esteemed Moderator explained about Illinois Bell's accomplishments (first in....., etc.). I would just like to give credit where credit is due. We all, including myself, too often complain about telcos: their reps, policies, etc. While I sometimes wish Illinois Bell would do this or that differently, I commend their people with whom I have dealt. I continue to be amazed at their technological advancements, accomplishments, nifty little telecommunications toys (Caller ID, auto ringback, call screening, etc.). One problem, though: I wish in my home area all this stuff was available. It seems like in Pat's it already is up and running. So far, all we have of the new stuff is distinctive ringing. I can't wait for the Caller ID, ringback, and screening. My harassing calls are getting more than annoying. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: Several years ago I knew someone whose idea of a good time on Saturday night was to take a cordless handset and go out 'cruising for dial tone'. He'd drive around in his car and whenever dial tone was heard he'd stop and make a call or two. Real upstanding character. Regards CLASS in 708/312: It was just about two months ago that we were able to order *some* features. I have Call Screening and for all I know may still be the only subscriber or one of the few in the Chicago-Rogers Park office to have it. The business office is still not actively marketing it. About 70-80 percent of 312 is now equipped, and a somewhat smaller percentage of 708. Just keep asking for it. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:48:44 GMT In article <16404@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: [Phone scammers call random numbers and claim to be telco security conducting a test. Victim is told to say "yes" to the following call asking approval of a 3rd-party charge.] >If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off >phone service. How foolish of them -- I'll bet fewer people would think something was amiss if instead the scammers said, "Well, in that case we'll have to schedule a visit to your premises. During what four-hour period will an adult be present, etc.". The hassle involved would probably get more victims to give in. Are any telcos planning to automate the third-party charge approval call with a voice-recognition system, the way that many collect call approvals are now done? I imagine there's plenty of scam potential there, if so. David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has collect and third-number charge approval completely automated. After dialing the number and the 0 for operator assistance a recording says "to place a collect call dial 11; to place a third-number call, dial 12; otherwise dial 0 once again to reach an operator." You then record your name, are placed on hold while the request is verified, then connected (or disconnected!) as appropriate. The other nice thing we have here is we can have our lines set to automatically deny collect/third number billings if desired. The IBT/AT&T data base will tell operators everywhere that you do not accept such calls without the operator even bothering to call you and ask. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 16:03:54 EST Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service Hi Patrick! Just a quick note to let you know that I also called Telecom*USA and requested an 800 number with them. They said there is a one-time $25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month. Calls will be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the evening. This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and requires users to enter a "security code" so "you control who calls." This sounds to me like an excuse to let multiple users share one 800 number. :-) Like Steve Kile mentioned in an earlier message, it will be a couple of weeks before service is connected. I will let you know how things go if you're interested. I do have a few other questions though (some of which I forgot to ask the sales rep.): One, do you have a lot of problems with people calling your 800 number who you DON'T want to call? (e.g., business-oriented telemarketers, etc, ad infinitum, et al...) "Distinctive Ringing" is not offered in my exchange, so I won't know if I get to pay for the call or not. :) Two, are you listed in 800 information if you have your own 800 number? If so, can you tell them NOT to list you? Three, if my line is busy and someone calls on the 800 number, am I still billed for their call? Also, here at Michigan State U, on campus we have AT&T's ACUS as our ONLY choice for a LD carrier. So like you, I will be using two different LDCs for different purposes. Best regards, Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW -- eddy@jafus.mi.org -- The Eccentricity Group [Moderator's Note: Wrong numbers on my two 800 lines are rare. The way I 'control who calls' is by giving the number to a very select group of people: my brother and his wife, our parents, friends, etc. I had the 800 numbers before I had distinctive ringing, with them being diverted by the Telecom*USA switch into my first line. Once distinctive ringing started two months ago, I had the 800 numbers set to dial the distinctive number. *No one* uses the distinctive number except my brother, his wife or myself when calling home from elsewhere, *and* 800 calls diverted into it. Therefore the distinctive ring indicates a call we want to receive and/or control. Telecom*USA does not bill for incomplete 800 calls. If your line is DA or BY then there is no charge. You have to actually answer. Distinctive ringing also has a distinctive call-waiting tone; you can flash, accept the call, put it on hold or do whatever you can usually do with call-waiting, but of course you don't want to keep the 800 number on hold very long if you can help it. 'Return Call' (*69) is not yet able to return 800 calls, which are simply calls direct dialed to me out of the Telecom*USA switch. Unlike most phone service where a free directory listing is the default and a non-pub number is an extra charge, Telecom*USA 800 numbers are non-pub by default. You can have it listed in the 800 data-base if desired; I think they charge a few dollars per month, or whatever SW Bell (SWBT operates 800-555-1212) charges them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 15:43:44 EST Organization: Brown Cow Software Subject: Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC > inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me > see... [ good stuff deleted] > But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78 > percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout > 1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This > system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the > COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the > cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other > 22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made > to accept the CONTAC abortion.) I lived in the "Santa Clara 11" (244, 246 etc) back then and remember getting a little card with my bill stating something about CONTAC. I didn't pay any attention at the time, but shortly thereafter, I noticed that I could discern three different dialtones! They were all dialtones, but each one sounded a little different. I wonder how long it will be before Pac*Bell gets CLASS? (peals of laughter) !! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 14:04:51 PST From: "Gary D. Archer" Subject: Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"? The other day I was having some problems with my modem line ... so down I went to the garage of my condo looking for the demark plug to test the lines. Lo and behold ... I don't have one, I only have the old style lightning protector block. Yes ... I checked to see if there were any other "demark" boxes for the condo units ... all the wires come in individually to each unit. What are my rights to have a "demark"? (BTW the modem problem was my cat pulling some wires out of a phone jack in another room, if I'd had a "demark" it would have been easier to verify it was my problem. If I call and ask that a "demark" be installed with the phone company (PAC*BELL) charge me for the install? Gary [Moderator's Note: I may be wrong, but I do not believe a 'demark' is anything more or less than the place on the wire where your possession of the wire ends and telco's begins. In your case, this would probably be at the lightning protector, if that is the place where the wires then come through the wall and into your home. It is the place on the wire where you no longer have any control over what happens to it. Why don't you put your own demark in at the point where the wires enter your home? Get a modular block (RJ-11?) from Radio Shack and mount it where the wires come in. Cut the wires, attach them to one side of the block and re-connect your side of the wires at the same place. Then in the future, tests can be done by going to that place, lifting off your side of the wires and plugging a known good phone into the connection, enabling you to test outward from there, from the convenience and warmth of your home. If the line is bad at that point, the trouble is obviously outside your home and your control. The single part needed from Radio Shack will cost only a couple dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #76 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01905; 30 Jan 91 3:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16729; 30 Jan 91 2:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22848; 30 Jan 91 1:10 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 0:11:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #77 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300011.ab31054@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 00:11:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 77 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 800 Number for 900 Abuse [Ken Jongsma] Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled [Carl Moore] Attendant Required For Message to New York State [Carl Moore] Merc Marketing Executive Contacts [John Higdon] Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Kent Hauser] Tel Aviv Pingable Systems [Hank Nussbacher] Calls to Cuba [Carl Moore] Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order [Ed Greenberg] Need System For LD Accountability [Ed Greenberg] Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX [Robert Green] Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga] Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner System [Curtis E. Reid] How Do I Tell When ... [Ralph Zazula] Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard [Renato Cortinovis] 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Carol Springs] Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Robert Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 800 Number for 900 Abuse Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:14:11 EST From: Ken Jongsma According to a small blurb in this weeks issue of _Insight_, a 900 number industry association will set up an 800 number to field consumer complaints! According to _Insight_, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telesphere and 100 of the estimated 500 providers will have the number running by March. Complaints will be taken and given to the carrier responsible for routing the call. Presumably, the carrier will cut off those providers that do not meet the carriers' standards. When the number is released, the local RBOCs will be used to promote it. Actually, considering the industry, I'm surprised it isn't going to be a 900 number, at $9.95 for the first minute. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken [Moderator's Note: I think you are a cynic. Actually, AT&T is very conservative about what they allow on their lines by comparison to many of the others, and they are more responsive to consumer complaints about 900 service. Post the number when you get it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:04:10 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled Yesterday, during Super Bowl coverage, I heard that Pepsi had planned a telephone call-in contest, but that it decided to cancel it out of concern over the phone network. This (as I have read since in a news- paper) was done after consultation with the FCC. I don't know much else about this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:07:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Attendant Required For Message to New York State I have sent an AT&T Voicemark message (via call to 800-562-6275) to a telephone number in New York state. During the call, I got a message, apparently prompted by the recognition of a New York area code, that New York state law requires an attendant to deliver the message (understood to mean that automated delivery is not allowed); however, the automated option was still available (I then talked to an attendant who told me that the message would have been rejected by AT&T if I had selected the automated option); I had selected the attendant-delivery option anyway. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Merc Marketing Executive Contacts Date: 28 Jan 91 12:09:39 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon I was doing some house cleaning on the ole system here and discovered some info that might be of interest to anyone who is still being pestered by the Mercury News. These are the key phone numbers to make it stop: San Jose Mercury Marketing Manager: Mr. Averitch 408 920-5651 President of the Telemarketing Contracting firm: Steve Bush 408 983-1800 If you are having problems, these are THE people who can help. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 29 Jan 91 00:43:59 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC What's the latest and greatest in small business telephone systems? General requirements: ==================== 6-8 incoming lines 16-20 telephone lines "Normal" features such as intercom, paging, DND, etc. Ability to connect normal two-wire devices such as FAX, answering machine, cordless phone, etc. Good value (ie cheap). Please send your recomendation and I'll be glad to summarize. Thanks. Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet,sundc,uupsi}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.com (202) 408-0841 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:30:42 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems >[Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be >bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough >time this past week. Are sites there still connected? PAT] The following are a list of the publically advertised IP systems in the Tel Aviv area: Bar-Ilan University - Ramat Gan BIMACS.BIU.AC.IL Computer Science system VM.BIU.AC.IL Computer Center VM system ALEPH.BIU.AC.IL Library (Aleph) Tel Aviv University - Ramat Aviv VM.TAU.AC.IL IBM/3090-150E - VM/CMS CC VE.TAU.AC.IL CDC Cyber 990E - NOS/VE CC NOS.TAU.AC.IL CDC Cyber 990E - NOS CC CCSG.TAU.AC.IL Silicon Graphics IRIX CC ARISTO.TAU.AC.IL Sun3/80 - SunOS CC TAUVAX.TAU.AC.IL Vax 6320 - Aleph Library VIRGO.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math LIBRA.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math TAURUS.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math TAUENG.TAU.AC.IL Vax11/750 - VMS Engineering GENIUS.TAU.AC.IL Sun4 - SunOS Engineering VESTA.TAU.AC.IL Sun4 - SunOS Physics You are free to ping them as you wish. Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 9:36:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calls to Cuba Because of the message about not being able to call Cuba (except Guantanamo Bay) from the U.S., I am including what codes I have for Cuba: 53 Cuba 7 Havana 99 Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base (dialable only from U.S.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:01 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order I don't know if this is a record, but it certainly comes close. On Saturday, 26 January, at 9:00 AM, I called the Pacific*Bell business office and asked to have phone service turned on in my brother-in-law's apartment. The order taker went through the usual questions with me, and promised service by Monday at 5:00 PM. We then proceeded to the store and purchased a phone. We returned to the apartment and, just for the heck of it, plugged in the phone. Voila! Dial Tone. I called the operator and asked if I was calling from the number that I had been given. I was told yes. This was at about 11:00 AM. Two hours from order to service! Amazing. Bouquets: The order taker was professional, knowlegable and courteous. Nice, even. She and I swapped telecom jokes. She offered three numbers to choose from. She offered, but did not press for, custom calling features. She queried for a LD carrier. Brickbats: She tried to sell me touch tone. (!tm) Many of you know that Pacific*Bell will remove the charge for touch tone on Feb 1. I think she was just programmed to ask the question. Had I said yes, it would have cost $5 installation plus a prorated portion of the $2/ month tone charge. I said no, bought a tone/pulse phone (aren't they all these days?) and lo and behold it works on tone anyway. Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:08 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Need System For LD Accountability My brother-in-law (Torre) has a small business which employs about ten people. He currently uses a LD system wherein there is a dialer on each line that absorbs the phone number and a unique ID code, then redials the call on a 950 number. When the bill comes, it is sorted by ID number and thus Torre can see who made what calls and how much each employee spent on the phone. Calls are being processed on "Call America," a undistinguished (IMHO) LD carrier giving what seem to be average rates. They seem to excel at saving money on INTRA-LATA calls, while are competitive on INTER-LATA calls. Questions: Does anyone know anything of interest about Call America? Can anyone suggest any similar solutions that are CO or LD-switch based, i.e.do not require the dialer on the line? Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ From: Robert Green Subject: Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX Date: 29 Jan 91 20:20:05 GMT Organization: Decision Software Co, Cambridge, MA I need a RS-6000 AIX, micro-channel or RS-232 interface for RS-485. Does anyone know where such a product or some information can be obtained? Thanks, Bob Green uunet!mrmarx!bg Mainstream Software Corporation (617) 894-3399 411 Waverly Oaks Road FAX (617) 894-2353 Waltham, Mass 02154 ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 29 Jan 1991 16:53:15 EST From: LABXU@cunyvm.bitnet Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is an interface standard. Thanks, Adeola Osinuga Internet:Labxu@cunyvm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:25 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner system I got the latest catalog of Hello Direct (Spring, 1991). On pages 28 and 29, Hello Direct announces AT&T Partner phone system. If you have two to four outside lines and four to six extensions, this is the ideal system at an affordable price. My question is: there is no specification included. I don't want to call them and have them recite the specs over the phone. Does any one know the specs of the Partner system? For example, can it use existing RJ-11/RJ-14 jacks? Can a different phone set (i.e. a Panasonic Easa-Phone series set) be connected to the jack as analog set? What is "extension wiring kit"? Is it a PBX, KSU, or Hybrid? And so on and on. It's interesting that I haven't heard of this system. Does anyone know when it was first produced or is it truely a new product? Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ From: "zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu"@arizona.edu Subject: How Do I Tell When... Date: 28 JAN 91 22:23:29 Reply-To: zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu Organization: U of Arizona Experimental Elementary Particle Physics - Tucson, ..a phone in another part of the house has been picked up? I want to do this via the phone line in my room. I guess this is the same idea that is used on the phones with the little lights on the bottom that light up when someone else picks up a phone on the same line. Thanks alot! (in advance) Ralph Zazula University of Arizona Department of Physics UAZHEP::ZAZULA (DecNet/HEPNet) zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu (Internet) [Moderator's Note: We have this question from time to time, and always I recieve numerous schematics, etc. Perhaps some of you will answer direct to Mr. Zazula and assist him. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Renato Cortinovis Subject: Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:18:58 CAM I am looking for information about audio-graphic conferencing software that would allow the use of a standard PC as electronic blackboard in distance education environments. As far as I heard, some people are working to such a system, that would be composed of a cheap PC board for audio digitalization and data mixing, plus some software package available under windows. Please send any available information to this conference or to Renato Cortinovis on Internet or the following X400 address: Count, ADMD = ARCOM, PRDM = ITU, Name = Cortinovis. Many thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 23:01:29 EST New England Telephone in Massachusetts has an insert in its latest round of bills entitled "Introducing 1 + 976 Telephone Programs": By dialing telephone numbers beginning with 1 + 976, you can get in touch with a wide variety of information and entertainment programs ... These programs are provided by vendors known as Information Providers, who are *not* affiliated with New England Telephone ... [NET] only provides the 1 + 976 telephone numbers, and bills the charges established by each Information Provider in your monthly telephone bill ... Calls to 1 + 976 can't be made from outside of Massachusetts or via long distance carriers. They also can't be made from coin operated phones, WATS lines, or certain cellular or other types of mobile telephones. Also, your calls to 1 + 976 programs can't be Collect, Bill to Third Number, Credit Card, or Operator-handled calls. Nowhere in the flier is it mentioned that 1 + 976 numbers act the same as the old 976 numbers. The main, unstated purpose of the insert seems to be to alert customers to the fact that they must now dial 1 before 976. And the "1" itself probably results from complaints of a predictable type: "Hey, what's this funny charge on my bill? It looked like a regular number to me..." I don't know whether there is an interim period in which unadorned 976 will still work, since I had 976 calls blocked on my lines long ago. (I suspect dialing old-style will get you a "You must first dial 1..." recording.) Any other areas have 1 + 976, or is New England Telephone leading the way? Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update Date: 29 Jan 91 08:26:16 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle I was really sorry to see the Moderator assume a pro-Caller ID stance in an addendum to a posting on this topic. It's a controversial and by no means trivial topic, and one that could have severe repercussions for the telephone industry. If this sort of bias pervades discussions of Caller ID, I will have cause to wonder about the objectivity of moderation extended to other topics here. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: I am very much pro-Caller*ID and make no bones about it. Is it biased to favor Caller*ID but unbiased to take a stance against it? Actually, discussion of Caller*ID -- at least the politics of it -- is kept to a minimum here because of the amount of controversy it generates both ways. For continued discussion of the topic I suggest our companion mailing list which specifically deals with the several facets of telecommuications privacy. Messages should be addressed to: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. To contact Dennis Rears, the maintainer of the list so that you can be added if you wish to read what others have written: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #77 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02945; 30 Jan 91 5:05 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04950; 30 Jan 91 3:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16729; 30 Jan 91 2:20 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 1:57:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #78 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300157.ab06702@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 01:57:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 78 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [Al L. Varney] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Joe Talbot] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [David Tamkin] Re: MCI MasterPhone [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 09:50:53 CST From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article <16476@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to >call a number from which they have been prohibited: [some details removed] >Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI >will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all >are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as >ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be >rejected. This is a very nice feature, especially the part about >being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group) >they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't >stop them. Pat, I'd like more details on your testing of this "feature", since it shouldn't depend on the "ANI", except under very special rules. One reason for this is that, on forwarded calls, ANI is the forwarding party, but you really want the ID of the original calling telephone. All CLASS features rely on the "Calling Party number", which is the telephone number of the originating caller AS KNOWN BY the CO switch. PBX telephones aren't known by the switch, so it uses the "Main" number associated with the PBX lines/trunks -- usually the number listed in the telephone book for the PBX user. Multi-line Hunt groups MAY have lines that have NO telephone number, so the switch uses the the "Main" number associated with the group -- this will lead to the behavior you report. These types of Calling Party numbers are also labeled as "non-unique". Multi-party lines (more than two on a line) may not have a known calling telephone -- the switch labels the Calling Party as "unknown". Bellcore and the industry/ANSI T1 Committee haven't decided on or documented the behavior of Centrex (Bellcore's "business") lines, so they work (or don't work) in whatever manner the switch vendor decided. That's why your "StarLine(?)" service [really "personal" Centrex lines] isn't offered with CLASS -- Illinois Bell can get it on some vendor's switches but not all switches, so they can't or won't tariff it. >If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the >LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing >*60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you >wish to add cannot be screened at this time." >Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return >last call you received) rely on the ANI received. ... ^^^ see "Calling Party" above >If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the >busy signal. Instead you get a recording ... "Repeat Dial" and "Return Last Call" are probably Ameritech Service Marks for the Bellcore terms "Auto-Callback(AC)" and "Auto-Recall(AR)". Auto-Recall/Auto-Callback attempts initially query the distant number to verify it is a number valid for an incoming CLASS call. The busy/idle status is returned if the number is valid. No call takes place unless/until the line is idle, thus no busy signal. >Other Call Screening tidbits: the number to be screened has to be >supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco >administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive >ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which >present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line ^^^^^^^ See "Calling Party" above >in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some >DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening, >and repeat/return call functions however. The features shouldn't be "confused"; they don't work here because the Calling Party number is not considered "unique", and thus you are unlikely to reach/screen the original calling telephone. Illinois Bell could set the option to allow Auto-Recall to such numbers, but it does complicate the feature documentation to the customer. [You have to explain how you may reach an attendant, not the original caller, and of course the attendant may be unaware of the original call.] >The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one >missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told >when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number >when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for >the call. But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it. For consistency, of course, Caller*ID (Bellcore's "Calling Number Delivery") uses the Calling Party number, along with the "presentation allowed/restricted" indication. Glad to hear you like the capabilities; a friend in New Jersey that is not a "telecom person" thanked me profusely for the features when I mentioned I had worked on them over the last several years!! She particularly liked the "repeat dial" function, with whatever name Bell Atlantic chose for the feature. One thing Bellcore didn't standardize when documenting CLASS was the NAMES for the features. This will eventually cause real confusion when the people discuss the features or when they relocate to other areas of the country. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems The above is personal opinion, not AT&T's or its agents. [Moderator's Note: The tests I performed were these: My office has a PBX with sixteen trunk lines. All the trunks have actual numbers assigned to them. The FAX machine has its own outside line/number not connected with the PBX. A few of us have private lines which do not go through the switchboard. From home, I call-screened only the main listed number for our office. Then I used a WATS-extender in my office to call into the PBX from home. I dialed '9' and called my number. The call was rejected. I repeated this from the office the next day, to assure myself I was going out on various trunks -- almost certainly not on the main number (the first trunk) itself. I was even blocked when I used the FAX phone line or some of the private phone lines in our office. Why? I believe it is because every phone in our office is associated with and billed under our main number -- the one that I screened. In the second test, I 'call-screened myself'. That is, I used my first line to tell the switch to screen calls from my first line. When I used my first line to dial my first line, I did not get a busy signal. Instead, I was sent to treatment with the screening message. When I tried dialing my first line from my second line I was *also* screened. Why? Again, I think it was because both of my numbers are billed under the first number. When I did it in reverse, using my second line to screen my second line the results were not the same. My second line was screened from calling my second line, but my first line got through with no argument. I am not sure why. I was unable to get either of my lines to screen calls from my bogus, pseudo-number used for distinctive ringing on the first line. Not that there would be any calls, of course -- there cannot be outgoing calls from that 'line' -- but I wanted to see what would happen. What did haopen was the switch said 'I'm sorry, that number cannot be screened' in the same way it refused to screen numbers not in service or numbers which otherwise do not supervise. Oddest of all were a bunch of numbers in a DID group I tried: Both the main listed number and various internal numbers on the (Rolm-behind-a-few-hundred-DID-trunks) system could not be screened. But IBT would not say 'yes' or 'no' ... the response was 'I'm sorry, that number is temporarily unavailable. Try again in a few minutes.' But no matter when tried over several days, the response was always the same. Finally, if you have been screened, the operator cannot put you through either! It works like our 900/976 blocking here: If I block my phones from 976-whatever, dialing the operator won't help. She cannot connect me. And likewise, if I screen you, then calling the operator *from the line(s) being screened* to ask for an emergency interupt or 'assistance in dialing' will be to no avail. Her calls will be screened also, because the equipment apparently is smart enough to know the number placing the call. Very clever service! PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Date: 29 Jan 91 00:29:51 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16479@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it > So it takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in. Big deal. If the modem folks would define a way to specify 20pps, sticking to rotary would be even less painful. Our Cannon FAX has three positions: 10pps, 20pps, DTMF. Ask Hayes how to do 20pps... TT is great, but it is over $4 on residence lines in some places, and the telcos deserve as many customers as possible saying that is outrageous and sticking to rotary where possible. Many PBXs can be simply programmed to do the conversion at 20 pps, and the $ savings over a few years can be dramatic. If it isn't your own staff, but your 'customers' (e.g. hotel guests), the additional wasted 'people' time isn't an issue. The big fight may come when you say you will pay for rotary service but want to be class-marked as a TT customer so 0+ calls will first try bong-tone to let you TT in fone-card info. Normally rotary customers get the operator directly. The bong-tone includes the '#' tone to knock TT->pulse converters off the line. You are paying TT charges to the local telco, but the IXC would rather have you TT the card info rather than waste operator time. ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 29 Jan 91 06:11:57 GMT Reply-To: Joe Talbot Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan This is a really annoying one to get repaired! First, GTE ALWAYS "clears" trouble reports quickly. The company's performance is based on trouble reports being "cleared", NOT necessarily solving the problem reported. Often people will just give up. When you report a problem, you'll find that it is almost always "cleared" within and hour, and WITHOUT anybody calling you back to tell you about it. Intermittant problems such as bad trunks, bad DTMF receivers and switch bugs are almost impossible to get fixed unless you are persistant and somtimes nasty. Always keep a log of who you spoke with, at what number and when. Always let the GTE person you are speaking with (usually a clerk with no telcom knowledge or interest and NO power to get anything done) know that you are keeping a log and that if this problem isn't solved, it WILL come back to haunt THEM. I hate to sound so down on them, but GTE runs its telephone operations like a water or gas utility, or a governament bureau. To them, you're just a number. Joe Talbot Voice Mail 011-813-222-8429 [Moderator's Note: About twenty years ago I had a case where many calls I made in the middle of the night were getting hung up in some bad equipment in the Chicago-Hyde Park CO. No one in repair wanted to listen to me. One night I got the troubled equipment so I kept it on hold on my first line and called Night Plant on my second line and asked him to go in the frames and find me; in doing so he'd find the pathology and either fix it or busy it out. He went in and found it. The next day the foreman called me and thanked me, saying "I've been looking for that booger for a couple days now!" :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 20:41:27 CST Steven Minneman wrote in volume 11, issue 66: SM> In article <15921@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: CM> ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by CM> removing the 1+ from toll calls within it SM> And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D. Patrick Townson commented: PT> [Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For PT> however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area, PT> and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of PT> prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here. PAT] We still don't use 1+7D in Chicago. It's 1+10D that we had to start using in 1982, only for inter-NPA calls, when we were preparing for N [01] X prefixes. We've never dialed 1+7D here. Before October 1, 1982, Illinois Bell tolerated 1+10D; then they started requiring it. Centel recommended it even before then and has required it since, except for calls to area code 815, on which Centel accepts 10D for some reason, even though they insist on 1+10D for calls between 312 and 708. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com [Moderator's Note: In Chicago itself we never dialed 1+7D, but some of the outlying suburbs did. Antioch comes to mind, but then they could dial 396-xxxx without the 414 on the front. The rest of us couldn't. And interestingly enough, Americtech Mobile still allows 10-D calls between 708 <==> 312 <==> 815, or you can go 1+ 10-D if that is your pleasure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI MasterPhone Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:00:41 CST Lyle McGeoch wrote in volume 11, issue 71: : Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent : calling card calls. The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly : better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a : reasonable way to save a bit. No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay : each month... sounded great. Well I just received the information : packet from them. The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing : instructions: : --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer : --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone : --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits) : --- dial # But MCI and US Sprint will gladly bill any account -- at least any residential account -- to a MasterCard or VISA. You can use a regular MCI Card and just dial 950-1022 and a fourteen-digit card number (already saving ten digits and the final octothorpe) and still have it billed to a credit card. No fee to sign on, no extra bill to pay each month; sounds just as good as it did at first. MCI and US Sprint will also bill your 10XXX dialing to a MasterCard or a VISA (or your 1+ dialing if they're your primary carrier, which MCI has a habit of becoming suddenly and unexpectedly, but that's another story). My accounts with both of them are billed to a MasterCard, and through other arrangements one of my VISA cards has an MCI PIN and my AmEx card has a US Sprint PIN; calls made through them would likewise be billed directly to the card. : I can live without this nonsense. You're the customer; make them live with yours. Get a no-fee Universal Card from AT&T (they've extended the no-fee introductory offer to March 26, 1991), place your calls through MCI or US Sprint, and have them billed to the Universal Card. AT&T won't like your using another carrier instead of them, the carrier you use won't like having to pay the credit card discounts to AT&T, and neither will like your being so blatant about it. You get to tick off everyone! David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #78 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13324; 30 Jan 91 13:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10334; 30 Jan 91 12:54 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15255; 30 Jan 91 4:42 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04950; 30 Jan 91 3:27 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 2:51:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #79 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300251.ab30239@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 02:51:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 79 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NEC P300 Programming [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Person Numbers [Bill Woodcock] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Jon T. Adams] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [S. H. Schwartz] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [J. Langri] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Doug Faunt] Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Jim Rees] Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Dave Levenson] Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Alan B. Owens] UK Caller Identification [Steve Hamley] Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular [David E. Sheafer] NAMFAX Book For Sale [Kendall Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: NEC P300 Programming Date: 29 Jan 91 19:00:06 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16456@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: > If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300 > handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass > them along to me via e-mail or here on the net. I have a catalog from Cellular Products Distributors (my only relationship is that I have their catalog -- I've never even ordered from them). They advertise a "NAM PROGRAMMER FOR THE NEC-P300" for $88.88. They have a sketch of the device which looks like a box, somewhat smaller than a standard RJ11 block connected to a short pigtail with a connector on it which I assume would connect to your P300. (They seem to have other "NAM programmers" also.) My guess is that it is probably similar to the "Programming Battery" for the P-9100 and it simply shorts some contacts which then allows you to program it from the keypad if you know the codes. CDP lists phone numbers: (800) 654-3050 / (213) 312-0778. They sell cellular accessories (batteries, chargers, stands, phone holders, antennas, etc.). Their prices seem fairly good. If anyone orders from them, let us know how they are to deal with. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw [Moderator's Note: I bought a couple things from these people. I got a 'low-profile' 1/8 wave antenna for my Radio Shack CT-301. It is about the size of my thumb, and works almost as well as the standard, but much larger antenna. I also bought a 'battery eliminator' for the same cell phone. It is a dummy battery which fits on the unit in place of the regular one, and has a cigarette lighter plug on the other end. I can use it in the car without the more cumbersome 'mobile charging stand' supplied by Radio Shack. I put my order in one day; it came UPS Red a couple days later, charged to my VISA card. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Person Numbers Date: 29 Jan 91 18:50:00 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz stoltz@eng.sun.com (Ben Stoltz) Writes: > I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers". > In the brave new world, people may have the option of > calling me instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my > fax, even if that means the fax in the hotel where I am > staying instead of the fax machine where I work. > If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help, > how would you do it? It's my understanding that BellCore has been working on this for a couple of years now, with the eventual goal of being able to issue everyone a single phone number when they sign up for service the first time, much like getting a Social Security number. I've seen articles about the project in a couple of rags recently. Central computers would then (in an effort to be both "smart" and "user friendly") keep track of things like where your cellular was roaming and where the last outgoing call you'd made was placed from. In addition, you can keep a schedule on file with the telco: "homephone 6pm-7am; cellular 7am-8am; workphone 8am-5pm; cellular 5pm-6pm" or something like that. They also mentioned a feature that I've been looking for for a LONG time: having All your phones in at all locations ring until ANY ONE of them is picked up. bill.woodcock.iv woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu 2355.virginia.st berkeley.california 94709.1315 ------------------------------ From: "Jon T. Adams" Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 14:13:12 PDT Somebody named "Tiny Bubbles" queries: > 1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) For the most part, the current rash of portable phones that use the 46MHz/ 49MHz spectrum will not work quite as well using a rubber duck. Capture area is what generally makes an antenna and using a physically smaller antenna does reduce the capture area. However, since you are dealing with a hand-held radio which is a decidedly non-optimal environment for RF propagation especially at around 50MHz, you will be happier choosing personal convenience rather than efficiency. In other words, if I was regularly breaking the metal whip antennas (or had an urchin that did) I would opt for the flexible antenna. Also consider moving the base unit to a better location, higher up (get it off the floor), etc. > 2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. The security codes vary in their sophistication; but all concern themselves only with protection from some other person using your phone line and/or your handset ringing when someone else locally receives a call. None do any kind of voice encryption. Nothing you say on a portable telephone (different only by politics from a "cellular" telephone) is legally protected from eavesdropping. In fact, anyone with a 46 to 49MHz radio receiver / scanner (available at Radio Shack and anywhere else) can pick up your conversations. The police can enter anything heard there as evidence in court. But it's fairly boring eavesdropping, at least in MY neighborhood... Eventually, if enough people complain that their "rights" are being violated by this loophole, well maybe Congress'll just pass another law, forbidding anyone from listening, just like up in the cellular telephone spectrum. Or, with the same likelihood of a snowball lasting fifteen minutes in Hell, maybe some smart manufacturer will come out with a great new phone and some reasonable encryption system using spread-spectrum stuff and will make this fact pointedly known through worldwide advertising. There's still room for entreprenuers. But they are darned handy things to have. Plantronics makes one (or more likely, MADE one, since DAK now sells it for 59.95) that clips on your belt, has a tone pad for dialout, and a featherlight earphone/mic that just fits in your ear. Great for when you're working around the house. Have fun! jon ------------------------------ From: "S. H. Schwartz" Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: 29 Jan 91 17:08:24 GMT Reply-To: "S. H. Schwartz" Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY In article <16490@accuvax.nwu.edu> is written: >My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the >recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone >doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel. I thought the security code affected call-OUT, i.e. prevent someone with a portable handset from calling out through your base unit and your paying for his calls. S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains NY 10604 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 07:56:59 est From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Keep in mind that flexible antennas are a "compromise". You have to give a little to get a lot. Replacing whip rod antennas can get expensive ... but I keep one for fringe areas. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:13:31 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm MARS is definitely in business. The local Naval Hospital is looking for people to man the station there, to pass H&W traffic and 'phone patches to the local hospital ship, the Mercy?, deployed over there. ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 21:15:33 GMT In article <16379@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) writes: > I am not familiar with Indonesia, but you will find that the line > voltage for most of the world is 48V, give or take a few. Depends on where you are in Indonesia. I spent a week in Dabo Singkep once, and the ring voltage and frequency on the phone line depends on how fast you turn the crank. The loop talk current depends on how fresh the batteries are. I've been trying to call Dabo since I got back, and I can't convince the AT&T operator to stay on the line for the ten minutes or so that it takes the operator in Indonesia to get through. Seems to me that in the old days, the operator would take the number you wanted to call, then ring you back when she was able to get through. Is there some way to get them to do that today? ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding Date: 29 Jan 91 12:42:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16494@accuvax.nwu.edu>, xgml!ers@dataco.uucp writes: > There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as > ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer. > I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming > numbers. If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the > incoming data? You can connect ClassMate, and your Maestro and other Caller*ID receiving devices in parallel up to the REN limit for your line. Each device is a passive listener, and does not interfere with other similar devices on the same line. I don't know whether or not ClassMate will work in Canada. Perhaps there is a similar product aimed at the Canadian market? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 13:14:45 EST From: "Alan B. Owens" Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding In re TELECOM Digest V11 #75 (item 8): I have a ClassMate and an LCD display unit on the same line. Both devices read the incoming data. I live in Northern Virginia, in Bell Atlantic territory. I don't know if ClassMate will work in Canada. Alan B. Owens Building 182, Room 3M106 Staff Programmer 800 N. Frederick Avenue IBM Corporation Gaithersburg, Md 20879-3395 owensa@gbgvm2.iinus1.ibm.com 301-240-7191 ------------------------------ From: Steve Hamley Subject: UK Caller Identification Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 15:21:13 GMT Andrew Bargery (esupg@cu.warwick.ac.uk) writes... > Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays > the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this > done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US, > the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings. > Is this true? Is a similar system used here? Is it automatic or (more > likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it? The piece of equipment that you describe is a rip-off. Neither BT or Mercury send Caller*ID information over normal analog circuits and seem unlikely to do so in the future. The company who market the device are very cagey about admitting this. If you want to know who's calling and you're on a System X exchange then it is possible to convert to ISDN. Alternatively, 'Distinct Ringing' will soon(ish) be on the way as an extra 'Star Service'. The Caller ID device being advertised works as follows. When a person calls your number, it answers the call and asks the person at the other end (in a badly digitised voice) to key in the number they are calling from. It then displays this on a small LCD display. You then have the option of answering the call if the number is one you recognise. The flaws of such a system are rather obvious. Not least the fact that only around 10% of UK residential phones use DTMF signalling, which the device needs to take down the caller's number. **** As a brief comment on another message in the Digest, CNN's Peter Arnett isn't the only Western reporter left in Iraq. Alfonso Rojo from Spanish newspaper El Mundo is also permitted to remain by the Iraqi authorities. ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular Date: 29 Jan 91 09:53:03 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA I have a Novatel 8305 cellular telephone, and if anyone knows how to program it, the information would be most appreciated. My B carrier (for reasons both good and bad from the consumer's point of view) purposely locks out the A carrier, even though they are willing to reprogram if I want to access the A carrier. (That's great if there was a close by place I could bring it to.) Thanks, David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley ------------------------------ From: kendall miller Subject: NAMFAX Book For Sale Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 16:58:21 MST Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ My mail to coriolis!lewiz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu bounced and I was unable to get a number for Lewis De Payne or Albedo Communications through directory assistance so I guess the only option left is to post this. I purchased the loose-leaf version of the NAMFAX book from Curtis about six months ago (07/25/90). I have had only one notice of an update since I bought the notebook. I did not purchase the update. (Of course they might drop one from the mailing list if you don't buy the updates.) As you probably already know, the loose leaf notebook is updatable, while the mini-binder is not. I would be willing to part with the notebook for $100.00 plus shipping and COD charges. If you are interested, you can contact me at the email address: kendall@coyote.UUCP or kendall%coyote.UUCP@noao.edu You can also call me direct at 602-797-8660.